Review: VANILLA SKY

THE GOOD, THE BAD, & THE UGLY

(reviewed at Marple 10 with annie)

    There is an ancient law about re-makes. If you re-make something, do it differently! William Shakespeare wrote Hamlet in the year 1600. And even today it’s hard to see a version that isn’t a little bit different. Maybe in one version Ophelia is really insane as opposed to simply confused in another version. Maybe Hamlet is completely over the top in one version, and in another he’s just brooding and sad. Even if a stage or film version of Hamlet shows up set in the exact same time period with the actors acting basically the same, there is always at least a little difference. And that’s why his plays are re-made. There were no stage directions passed on, so directors can do anything with his plays. We got to see a cool new version of Titus Andronicus a few years ago, and how about that neat Ian McKellan Richard III? If you re-make something, change something. Cameron Crowe hasn’t changed a damn thing in his “new” verison of Open Your Eyes, Vanilla Sky. And the only question I have is…why?
    Alejandro Amenabar wrote and directed Open Your Eyes in 1998. It was a Spanish film starring Penelope Cruz and a bunch of Spanish unknowns. It was interesting, weird, and pretty wild until the God-awful ending that ruined the entire picture. Tom Cruise and his producing partner, Paula Wagner, produced Amenabar’s The Others this year, so somewhere along the line Cruise came up with his brilliant idea to re-make Open Your Eyes. How Cruise got Cameron Crowe to sign on is beyond me, because before Vanilla Sky, Crowe had a pretty great resume. Crowe was the genius that wrote the book and screenplay Fast Times at Ridgemont High, arguably one of the greatest High School film ever made (my vote is for Dazed & Confused…but you can easily argue for either), and wrote and directed Jerry Maguire, Almost Famous, and a dumb late-80’s film starring John Cusack that I have totally forgotten.
    But Cameron Crowe has talent! So it shocked and surprised me that he wrote and directed a film that was already in existence! Tom Cruise had went on numerous TV shows and boasted how this was Crowe’s version of Open Your Eyes, like Crowe was a cover band doing his “own” verison. I’m terribly sorry, but this isn’t Crowe or Cruise’s version! This Vanilla Sky is almost scene by scene the exact same fucking movie! So if you’re going to change nothing…why re-make it??? Sadly, the answer to that is $. You fucked up, Crowe, and I am very sad for you.
    In both films (and Abreje Los Ohos was pretty dumb but still better than this) the main character (in Sky it is the awful Tom Cruise) is a handsome, wealthy, popular guy who can have any woman he wants. He has a best friend and some evil co-workers who are trying to take away his political power. He also sleeps with a new woman every night, and his current squeeze is a sex toy played by the feisty Cameron Diaz. Of course, Diaz isn’t “the one.” Cruise falls in love with Penelope Cruz, a really sweet chick. And then things get weird.
    I won’t ruin anything, even though the previews even give away THE ENDING!!! Who the fuck runs these studios anymore? The very last scene of the film is IN THE TRAILERS!!! Give me a fucking break, you assholes!!! But I won’t give anything away, just to say that if you expected a sweet romantic lover story like Crowe usually shows us, you are in for a wicked surprise. And that’s why most people will loathe this movie. It’s not for American audiences. They don’t want a mind-fuck. Hell, if you’re going to give us one, at least give us Arnold and explosions, like in Total Recall, which I swear to God Amenabar totally ripped off in the first place.
    Both Open Your Eyes and Vanilla Sky are solid movies up until the end. The big revelation in both films is so dumb that every member of every theater across the country will squirm in their seats and say to themselves, “This is so stupid.” And if you’re going to re-make something, why keep the bad parts???
    As for the acting job, Tom Cruise is laughably bad. He obviously was a horrible choice for this part. Penelope Cruz is also extra awful. Maybe it was because she had already done this part…much better. Jason Lee more or less sleepwalks through this one. He deserves a bigger role. Kurt Russel is pointless in this film, but the one shining beacon is Cameron Diaz, who proves that she can be just as evil as she is fun.
    There’s something about Vanilla Sky that just doesn’t work. The music and style is great, and it works up until a point….but…Tom Cruise and the ending ruin the film. Cruise is awful here. I was laughing when the audience was supposed to feel bad for him. And the ending goes down with A.I. as one of the worst endings in modern film history. The special f/x are what does it ever time.
    It’s sad because Cameron Crowe, Jason Lee, Cameron Diaz, and Tom Cruise are such massive talents. Crowe tried his hardest, but it ends up being is fault. Why re-make a movie and not change anything? And why leave a horrible ending intact? I have no idea, but if I were you I’d rent the original and forget that this new version even exists. ** (out of ****)

Review: JAY & SILENT BOB STRIKE BACK

THE CURTAIN CLOSES ON THE STILL HILARIOUS JAY & SILENT BOB
                                       

(reviewed at AMC Granite Run on Satuday, August 25th, 2001 w/ Jack and Annie)

   This is it. This is the end. The end of the View Askewniverse. If it even needs a name. It is, after all, Kevin Smith’s universe. His “dick and fart jokes” universe, built upon by slackers and stoners and clerks.
    It all started in 1994. Clerks hit it big at Sundance. Then Mallrats hit but didn’t make any money, and a lot of a-hole critics panned it (Steven Rea gave it three stars…I still remember). So Smith came back with a hard-core independent titled Chasing Amy. It was funny but grown-up (a little bit, anyway). Then Dogma, his religious epic, hit. Now Smith has released Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back, his worst effort so far, but that doesn’t mean much. Why? Because Smith is one of the best writer/directors working today. Clerks and Mallrats are legendary. They are hilarious. They are entertaining. Dogma is funny, but also very complex and interesting. Chasing Amy showcased Jason Lee once again. And Ben Affleck became a star. It’s all over, however. Kevin Smith’s universe is done with. No more Dante. No more Randall. No more Brodie or Banky or Jay or Silent Bob or Steve-Dave. No more.
    This is the fifth and final chapter of Kevin Smith’s expanded trilogy. He has said that he wants to make more serious films, or at least, ones that don’t involve his characters that we have come to love and admire. He’s moving on. He’s got a more serious film lined up to star Jason Lee. And then he’ll probably make that Fletch movie. It wouldn’t surprise me if his other stars show up as different characters, and I doubt we’ll see the end of Jay or Silent Bob, but for now, this chapter in Smith’s life is over.
    Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back is Smith’s end to end all films. It’s the apotheosis of all dick and fart joke movies. If you actually look back at Clerks, that film was major serious compared to this latest opus of zany proportions. Basically, in Chasing Amy, Banky and Holden McNeill created a popular comic book based on both Batman & Robin and Jay & Silent Bob. It was titled Bluntman & Chronic. Holden moved on in Amy, and sold the comic book rights to Banky. In J&SBSB, Banky has sold the rights to Hollywood, where a big motion picture is underway. Jay (Jason Mewes…just about as hilarious as ever here, he eats up the screen in every scene he’s in) and Silent Bob (the writer/directior himself, Smith) find out that a movie is being made, and they haven’t gotten a dime. They soon find out that people on the internet (one of the greatest lines in the film comes when Jay says, “What’s the internet?”) with screen names like MagnoliaFan are bad mouthing Jay and Silent Bob. The Laurel & Hardy of the 90’s/00’s want revenge. They head out on a road trip from Leonardo, New Jersey to Hollywood, California to strike back.
    While there is a lot of funny stuff in this film, including a plethora of cameos, and a healthy heaping of inside Hollywood jokes (many Hollywood pros play themselves), there are a lot of sequences that just fall flat, namely the pseudo-action scenes. While Clerks was hilarious, it was never over the top. It was silly, but never out of bounds. Mallrats was over the top also, but it never went too far. This film goes a little bit too far. It’s out there. It’s all over the place. You either go with it or you don’t.
    Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back never comes near Clerks in the funny department, or Mallrats. But it is highly entertaining and a downright funny ride. These characters are great. The only real problem beyond the over-the-top factor is that some of the funniest characters in the View Askewniverse, like Jason Lee as Brodie or Banky, and the clerks themselves, don’t appear as much as they should.
    But Jay and Silent Bob couldn’t be funnier. They’re great. And while this film is never as great as it could have been, it makes a point to take everything Smith wants to say about “dick and fart” jokes and lay them to rest.
    I’m going to miss these guys and these characters. I’ll never forget them. Kevin Smith has created a wild world, a wild place to hang out and just have fun. It was great while it lasted, and for the most part, this is definitely a fun comedy to cap off a great five picture ride. **1/2

Review: AMERICAN PIE 2

AMERICAN PIE 2 IS HALF-BAKED

(reviewed at the mecca with jack, steve, and debbie on Sunday morning, Aug. 12th, 2001)

    In February of 2000 I finally saw American Pie. Like most, I thought of it as the next generation of Porky’s. What I realize now is that American Pie, the first one, may have had a lot of hilarious sexual hi-jinks from High Schoolers, but it wasn’t as bad as Porky’s. The first American Pie had some “gross” scenes like the infamous fucking the apple pie incident. But all in all, that film was never as over-the-top ludicrous or as silly as Porky’s.
    Yes, a High School senior had sex with a much older woman. Yes, a premature ejaculation was shown live via the internet. And yes, a red headed nerd was secretly fed a laxative so that he had to take a horrendously loud shit in the girls bathroom.
    Okay. I admit it. American Pie was silly and over-the-top and funny, but for my money, it was never as stupid or dumb as Porky’s or The Revenge of the Nerds. American Pie was in a class by itself. It was a great movie.
    The sequel, American Pie 2, however, fits perfectly with Porky’s and Nerds. Why? Because the sequel has no heart. It’s all gross out gags and ridiculousness. It’s like they forgot that the first film was half-gross out but also half realistic. The sequel is the kind of film that you watch and laugh at a few parts, but you come out saying, “The first one was better.” American Pie 2, for my money, is the kind of film that you see and wish the word “sequel” didn’t exist. Yes, AP was a lot of fun. Yes, we laughed at Stiffler and at Finch and at Jim and Nadia’s love interest. It was a great film. It was legendary. Does that mean we need a sequel? No.
    Sadly, Universal only saw the bottom line, and at least they got back the entire cast and screenwriter (though Paul and Chris Weitz, the co-directors, smartly disappeared).
    The last time we saw the guys was at Dog Years, toasting their sodas to “the next step.” We cut to the last day of their first year at college where coincidentally some of the main characters not only go to the same schools but have the same classes. The guys head back to East Great Falls, Michigan where they all decide to rent a summer house for the, uh, summer. It’s right up against Lake Michigan. And it is gigantic and huge and right on the beach, yet they have no problem affording it. Go figure.
    Basically, American Pie 2 focuses on the summer with the guys by the lake.
    That’s it. There isn’t really a “plot”, not like they needed one. After all, the first film’s only plot was about losing one’s virginity before High School graduation.
    If you have seen any previews for this film, then, sadly, you have seen just about every funny scene in the thing. The best aspects of this flick are Stiffler (of course, although he isn’t nearly as funny as he was in the first one…it seems like the crew overdid his part a bit…he’s funnier in small bits), the Sherminator (and we never do find out who invited him to their beach house in the first place), and the walkie talkie scene. Yes, the walkie talkie scene is more or less a complete rip-off of the internet scene, but it works, and it is the funniest and best thing in the entire film. As for what doesn’t work? Everything else. I won’t ruin anything, but Michelle, the red headed band geek, shows up more than once or twice, and sadly, she isn’t funny at all. The other bad aspect is the total waste of the other characters. Finch is given nothing funny to do. Kevin and his old girlfriend are more or less just there. They get nothing to do. Jim is given more abusive and embarrassing hi-jinks, but none of them are nearly as funny as the apple pie debacle. And the worst part of this film is the ridiculousness of it. The first film may have some odd things like internet stripping, but at least it was based in a world of reality. The world this sequel takes place in is a fucking fantasy realm. They added way too much silliness that would have been better suited in Porky's.
    American Pie 2 on it’s own would have been a funny film. But the first one was so much better, so much fresher, and so much funnier. It had everything and more. This one is a pale imitation. It’s not that funny, it’s boring, it’s too long, and it wastes everything the first film cemented. I hate when sequels diminish their predecessors. And sometimes, sometimes you wish the word “sequel” never existed. *1/2 (out of ****)

Review: RUSH HOUR 2

TUCKER & CHAN PUT THE FUN BACK INTO THE POPCORN FILM

(reviewed at AMC Granite Run 8 with Mom on Wednesday, August 8th, 2001)
 
  This summer has to have been one of the worst summers on record. No, I am not talking about weather wise or real news wise. No, I’m talking about movie wise. The summer movie season is always my favorite. I anticipate it after Christmas because it’s the next big thing. Yes, it helps that I get off school for 3 months, but in reality, I would love the summer movie season even if I was working.
    This summer’s crop looked somewhat promising. But so far, with only a few left to hit (Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back, John Carpenter’s Ghosts of Mars, Captain Corelli’s Mandolin, and The Curse of the Jade Scorpion to name the biggest), this summer has turned out to be the Hollywood Summer of Shit 2001. I missed a lot of films, including A Knight’s Tale, Evolution, Tomb Raider, Swordfish, Atlantis, Scary Movie 2, The Score, Made, Ghost World, Sexy Beast, America’s Sweethearts, Legally Blonde, to name a few. I saw a lot too, including The Mummy Returns, Shrek, Pearl Harbor, A.I., Jurassic Park 3, The Planet of the Apes, and American Pie 2.
    Shrek was a little bit too over the top for me, but it was entertaining and great to look at. Spielberg’s A.I. was a hit or miss film, but I think I enjoyed the majority of it. As for the rest, where do I begin? Pearl Harbor had a good forty minute explosion sandwiched between some of the worst horse shit put on film. Jurassic Park 3 may have been made for children, but it still royally sucked. How hard is it to make a friggin’ good dinosaur movie??? And the worst movie of the summer had to be one of the most anticipated, and yes, with The Planet of the Apes, we should have realized going in that Tim Burton and co. were going to fuck it up. They even ripped off the surprise ending from a Kevin Smith comic book (unproven, but still, I think it’s funny that USA Today and The New York Post wrote about it).
    How hard is it to make a good popcorn film? It shouldn’t be hard at all. Is it harder to make a good popcorn film than a good drama or a comedy? Maybe, because I have only seen two good popcorn films all year, and only one of them hit this summer. The summertime is supposed to be the time we see these great popcorn films. Remember when popcorn films were actually watchable? Jurassic Park was awesome, as was True Lies and Speed. I haven’t seen a good popcorn film like those three in years.
    And this late in the summer (Friday, August 3rd- Opening Day) we finally get to see a good popcorn film. Not an awesome popcorn film, but one that just makes you smile and have a good time with. To smile and laugh and clap and leave the theater smiling proudly.
    This movie, not surprisingly, is Rush Hour 2. This sequel re-teams Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker as the yin and yang (one’s funny, one’s exciting) detectives out to solve a pseudo-plot. If you remember the first film, then you recall that a Chinese girl was abducted in Los Angeles and Jackie Chan was sent to solve the case. Chan had to team with a street smart detective played by Chris Tucker. If you remember the first film, then you remember the arguments (“Do…you…understand…the…words…that… are….coming…out…of …my…mouth?”) and the lesson on how to sing the song “War.”
    In this sequel, Chris Tucker heads to Hong Kong for some vaca, while Chan is busy attempting to solve the mystery of a U.S. Embassy bombing. The reason to see this film is not for the plot however, which only gets sillier and sillier. And even Zhang Ziyi (the feisty little beauty from Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon) is half-wasted as a villainious non-speaking bomb expert (don’t ask). The reason to see this film is for Chris Tucker and Jackie Chan. There is more action in this film than in the first, but this film is first and foremost a comedy. And what a comedy it is. Chris Tucker may annoy those over thirty, but to me he is downright hilarious. He makes this movie truly watchable. Some of his quips are legendary, especially his Godzilla tidbit.
    Rush Hour 2 is not an Oscar winner. It is not a dramatic feat for the eyes. It isn’t even as funny or good as the first Hour (though it’s pretty close). I enjoyed Rush Hour 2. It had some action, a lot of laughs, but in the end, it’s just plain entertaining. I enjoyed it a lot. I didn’t want it to end. I laughed every time Chris Tucker turned his head. I was loving every action scene that they could fit into the film. This is the best popcorn film of the summer, which is kind of sad almost, but, granted, I’m glad we got at least one. **1/2

Review: THE PLANET OF THE APES

TIM BURTON GOES APE…AND DEVOLVES IN THE PROCESS

(reviewed on Friday, July 27th, at Cinemark in Scranton w/ Dad, Mom, Annie, & Jack)

    I caught an A&E Biography show two days ago that featured Tim Burton. This week they’re doing Ape week, whatever that means. My dad says that A&E is probably owned or has some affiliation with 20th Century Fox. Why else would they do an ape week? This week they’re profiling different folks like Kris Kristofferson, Helen Bonham Carter, and Charleton Heston, who was the original dude who yelled, "Get your paws off me you damn, dirty ape!” Remember “Bright Eyes”? And the horrifying conclusion of that first film, The Planet of the Apes? It came out in 1968. It was based on a French book. It was such a hit money wise that they did a few crappy sequels. They even did a TV show and a cartoon. I guess it was only a matter of time before they re-did the original. It seems nothing is safe anymore. We got a re-make of The Mummy a few years ago. These aren’t massive re-makes, granted. They haven’t revisited Gone With the Wind or Casablanca yet. But where do we draw the line? I thought the original Apes was in league with those two. Yes, the other films and the TV show and cartoon brought it down. Maybe some don’t look at the original as a classic. But I do. So why remake it? Well that’s a simple question. Too easy almost. Why remake anything? Because you liked the first one so much? Maybe 20th Century talked Tim Burton into this idea, and maybe in his head he still believes it, but the real reason is cool, green, dead presidents. They made the new film for money. It’s a shame, too. Shouldn’t movies be about creativity? Or even, hell, in the summer they can be for entertainment. The new The Planet of the Apes lacks it all. It’s a popcorn mess. It’s boring. It’s lame. It’s un-funny. It’s silly. It sucks. I hate it. And now I look at Tim Burton as a shell of his former self.
    The new flick stars Mark Whalberg as the spaceman. He crashes onto a planet inhabited by apes. These apes talk and have control over the humans, who are looked upon as mere slaves. The story is the same as the orginal. A role reversal of sorts. And deep within there’s a racial thing going on, but with the new one you kind’ve have to look beyond the silly sci-fi hijinks to take anything remotely intriguing from it.
    The big deal with this one is Rick Baker’s makeup. He transformed some fine actors like Helen Bonham Carter (who will never be the same after Fight Club), Tim Roth, and Michael Clarke Duncan into apes. There’s gorillas and baboons, and there are some monkeys I think. The costumes are great, but to me they looked too plastic. I liked the original costumes because they were scary. And I liked the original because the humans couldn’t talk. And in the original you actually wanted Charleton Heston to win. You rooted for him with fists in the air. You wanted him to beat up those damn apes and win! In this new version, Mark Whalberg has a few quick quips here and there, and then one big fight speech that comes out of left field. The dude ends up on a planet where apes rule and he doesn’t act surprised, confined, or totally helpless. He really sucks in this film.
    Tim Burton also sucks here. The style he uses is sort of here, somewhere. He used to make really cool atmospheric films. Sure he doesn’t write the scripts, but his style is present in stuff like Edward Scissorhands and Ed Wood. Yes, he made those two silly Batman films, but I always looked at him as a pretty good director. When a film was coming out with his name on it you knew you would be in for something special. Unfortunately, he signed on to direct this. Why? Did he like the original? If he did, then why didn’t he leave it alone? Here he puts too much Mars Attacks like silliness into the final product. There are too many jokes and scenes that you cannot take serious. So then how are we to react during the scenes that are supposed to be serious? Yeah, Tim Roth as the villanious Thade is cruel and evil, but does it matter if he wins? Not really. I couldn’t care less.
    I was bored with Apes. It’s all visual style and brooding music and expensive ape suits. It lacks every emotion and all of the drama the original had. The script has a few twists and turns, but the twists and turns are completely laughable. Granted, I doubt we’re supposed to take much of this serious…and that is why this film is a comedy. Why is this film a comedy, though? Sure, add some humor and what-not for the kids and popcorn audiences, but why ruin a great film in this immediate mess of a picture? This film, sadly, is awful. It rambles along with barely any action, save for one very boring and ultra-silly battle sequence. And yes, I won’t give anything away, except to say that this film fits finely along with the rest of the cluttered Hollywood junk I call The Summer Shit of 2001. I can’t wait to miss the sequel. ½* (out of ****)

Review: JURASSIC PARK 3

THE DINOS ARE SMARTER BUT THE SCRIPT IS DUMBER IN JURASSIC PARK 3

(reviewed at the mecca with mom and annie on Wednesday, July 18th, 2001)

    As I watched Jurasic Park III on opening day, I realized something as soon as it started. The very first scene is extremely silly and lame, plus the special f/x are extremely cheap and pathetic looking. What I realized, and what I kept thinking about in my mind, was how hard is it to make a good dinosaur movie? I guess Joe Johnston and the dozen script writers dropped the ball, because I think that it should be fairly easy. Jurassic Park III is a silly, disaster of a film. Granted, 1997’s The Lost World was a step down from 1993’s Jurassic Park, but JP3 is a giant leap down in quality, special f/x, excitement, action, logic, plot, story, characters, beginning, middle, ending, and, okay. You get the point. It seems like Steven Spielberg and Michael Crichton were eaten by raptors in 1997 and thus had no say whatsoever in this mess. Because sadly, even though The Lost World could have been better, I would have much rather seen Crichton and Spielberg work on this thing.
    It all starts out lamely enough. I won’t spoil it, but if you have seen even one preview then you more or less know EVERY SINGLE SET PIECE IN THE ENTIRE FILM. Yes, the previews give away everything, even most of the ending. Basically, Dr. Alan Grant (Sam Neill, who was good in the first film, but I feel for bad for him here because it seems he only signed on because he needed the money…after all, since The Piano no one has been knocking down his door exactly) ends up on Site B, Isla Sorna, the second island where the crazy Dr. Moreau-ish John Hammond created the dinosaurs. This is the same island we first saw in The Lost World. The place is run down, and the dinosaurs are living about in fierce jungle terrain. The problem with this film, and the second one, is the fact that there is no real good reason to come back to any of the five islands (in The Lost World we learn that there are five islands, although in this film we learn that there are only two…yes, it doesn’t make sense). The second film featured a lame plot line that had Julianne Moore and Vince Vaughn showing up on the island to take pictures while a few hunters showed up to catch some beasts. Fine, that is at least somewhat logical. Why anyone is on this island in this third outing is more or less a complete copy of the first one plus another reason that is too lame to even repeat here.
    So some people get chased around by dinos, including the infamously big Spinosaurus, the raptors (again), and some pteradactyls. There is action, but it is silly and monotonous, and not nearly as death defyingly intense as the infamous stalled car sequence in the first flick, the infamous raptor kitchen scene in the first flick, or the infamous two t-rexes & a trailer scene in the second flick. The pteradactyl scene in this is probably what most people will agree is the best, but even that action scene turns silly and lame way too fast. This film, unfortunately, is for kids. And I guess I should have seen it coming. Joe Johnston directed this one, and he is the director of kid movies like October Sky and Jumanji. There are too many jokes in this film that turn it into a colorful romp. The big climactic ending is turned into a laughable popcorn disaster when some genius decided to cut an intense, violent battle with a colorful, unfunny joke plot.
    Don’t ask, because you don’t want to know how bad it is.
    How hard is it to make a good dinosaur film? Seriously! How hard it is? It’s not hard at all! Why not rate the next one R, put some hardcore Starship Troopers-esque carnage into it, and make it fucking awesome? Why bore us with this kiddy bullshit? Dinosaurs are fucking wicked! They’re sick and disgusting and ferocious and scary and horrible and not unlike the friggin’ nazi’s! Why are they in a kid’s movie???
    The other aspect that is a total letdown are the special f/x. They are, without a doubt, horrible. All of the dinosaurs look like they’re animated. The raptors are too colorful, and the Spinosaurus never looks as threatening as the t-rex in the first film, even though it’s bigger and more powerful. Jurassic Park came out EIGHT YEARS AGO, so why are the f/x worse now? Did ILM pull a rush job on Johnston? Do they only put the good stuff up on the screen when Spielberg is directing? I’m not sure, but this film needed major work. I guess now we finally realize why they sank this monster in mid-summer instead of opening it up earlier. It’s a kids film, and it isn’t boring, but it’s a mess. This franchise was golden, and the first film was the best popcorn film of the 90’s. Now the franchise is almost ruined. This summer, unfortunately, is turning worse every week. *1/2

Review: A.I.

SPEILBERG’S A.I. IS INTRIGUING, WONDERFUL, & DISAPPOINTING

(reviewed at the mecca with annie on opening day; Friday, June 29th, 2001)

    In 1969 Brian Aldiss wrote a short story titled “Super Toys Last All Summer Long.” Stanley Kubrick ran with Aldiss’ idea and created a magnificent fairy tale opus he titled A.I. No one really knows how long Kubrick tinkered with his movie idea, but I know that ever since I became a fan of cinema I have heard rumors and hushed whispers about this infamous and secretive project. A.I. was first thought to be a sequel of sorts to Kubrick’s most famous work, 2001: A Space Odyssey, or at least a companion piece. It wasn’t until he passed away that his true intentions were revealed to the public.
    I first read about these ‘true intentions’ in an article in Entertainment Weekly shortly after his death. Apparently Kubrick not only had an 80 page treatment written, but he had collaborated with almost every special f/x wizard in the business, including having telephone conversations for years with Steven Spielberg, who he had at first wished to have him help produce (there is also a story going around now that has Kubrick asking Spielberg to direct because the material was closer to Steven’s heart). There were supposedly story boards drawn up, and I’m sure Kubrick had everything ready to go.
    There was one problem besides his death: he wasn’t sure how to proceed. In the article in EW there was the idea brought forward that Kubrick wasn’t sure if the main character of A.I., a robot boy, should be played by a real actor or done via special f/x. No one really knows what Kubrick was waiting for. He had most of the work done but he decided to make Eyes Wide Shut instead, another film that he had been thinking of making for years.
    I’m sure Kubrick had more project ideas under his belt, but A.I. (Artificial Intelligence) was by far his greatest. When he died every one of his fans realized that what could have been his greatest triumph would never see the light.
    That is, until director Steven Spielberg took the reigns over.
    And now A.I. is playing in well over three thousand screens across the country. Sadly, it’s playing to main stream audiences who loath it, who leave the theater wishing they had their eight bucks back. The critics have been even more generous, but I believe everyone agrees that A.I. is a disappointment. It may feature wonderful sights, awesome special f/x, a truly great fairy tale story, and some fine performances by the likes of Jude Law and Sixth Sense boy, but in the end, the film is rather disappointing.
    Basically, A.I. is a future Pinnochio. Instead of the puppet yearning to be human, Haley Joel Osment is a robot yearning to be human. See, he is the first robot (known as a “mecha” in the film…for “mechanical”) who can actually love. But that is all that I am going to tell you. Why ruin anything? Why tell you about Joe or Teddy or the half-submerged New York City?
    The other critics, including the ridiculous spoiler filled review by Peter Travers of Rolling Stone, have given away everything and more. What Spielberg and Dreamworks and Warner Brothers have done so far has been to promote the film as being ‘secretvie.’ Kubrick used to do it. He had closed sets and used to use the bare minimum of set people. There’s a funny story Paul Thomas Anderson (the writer/director of the awesomely epic Magnolia) had about visiting the set of Eyes Wide Shut. P.T. asked Kubrick why he didn’t have that many people working on the movie. Kubrick leered at him and asked, “Why? How many people does it take you?” An obvious jab about Kubrick getting it done more efficiently.
    A.I. is a surprise. The previews have shown almost nothing about gigantic chunks of the film. The problem with this is that most casual moviegoers will enter the darkened theater expecting a Speilbergian fantasy. They will feel robbed, cheated, and raped. This is a dark film with even darker currents running through it. Kubrick would be proud of most of the film, especially it’s cruel and evil tone. This is a cold, barren world filled with robbers, cheaters, and thieves.
    A.I. is, honestly, a mess of a film. The beginning is different than most films these days but too much of the beginning is boring. The middle section is exciting and riotous and awesome and insane and silly and comical and ridiculous and wonderful and intense. The last section of the film is boring and silly and laughably bad. There are some parts in this film that had me hooked. There are wondrous sights in this film, like Joe by the moon, or Teddy crawling up on the bed like a common pet.
    There are a lot of good things about Speilberg’s A.I., the first film he wrote since Close Encounters of the Third Kind. The performances, special f/x, and story are the best things in the film. The bad parts include some slow parts in the beginning and the God-awful ending that works in script-form (or book form, this would have been a downright awesome novel). Why is the ending so bad here? You will be cringing in your seat because you will think that the movie is never going to end. After much thought, the special f/x are what ruined the ending. Still, the final scene is wonderfully serene, and I believe it is the same way Kubrick would have ended the picture.
    Which leads to the great, never-ending debate. Would Stanely Kubrick’s A.I. have been better? Would it have been longer? More violent? More sadistic? More sexual? More dark? More boring? More insane?
    Nobody knows. And sadly no one will truly ever know. But I was glad to see A.I. on the big screen, even though it was Steven’s, and not Stanley’s. In the end, while A.I. may have disappointed, it is a grand picture of epic scope worth seeing. It isn’t a great film, but it has excellent parts that you will ponder and reminisce about long after the sun sets. I would have rather seen Steven’s A.I. then no A.I. at all. I suppose that has to be saying something. **1/2 (out of ****)