28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Ezee E]

The weirdest thing is that K spent years obsessing over the movie & it's based on an ~800 word short story (~2 pages, printed). It must have a read-time under 2 minutes. It's a pretty good story but there's no movie there.

For sure. Just an idea that manifested for him I guess. I mean he had storyboards and a full-script ready to go, with his ideas of cgi at the ready. Not a Napoleon-level like obsession, but definitely was an idea he wanted to do.

His vision of the ending is even more heartbreaking than the perceived "happy ending" that Spielberg gave.

[Dukefrukem]

"happy ending" that Spielberg gave.

Which is the worst part of the film.

[Ezee E]

Which is the worst part of the film.

Have you read how Kubrick was going to shoot it?

[Dukefrukem]

Have you read how Kubrick was going to shoot it?

At one point... We had a huge discussion about it on the original Axis site.

[megladon8]

Actually, the "happy ending" and much of the emotional stuff in the film was from Kubrick.

The flesh fair and much of the darker material was from Spielberg.

[Ezee E]

Actually, the "happy ending" and much of the emotional stuff in the film was from Kubrick.

The flesh fair and much of the darker material was from Spielberg.

Right, but Kubrick had a much different "look" for his ending.
Gigolo Joe was going to be more of a "G.I." as well for Kubrick, and the sexuality was going to certainly be turned up. Cars were driving into open mouths and whatnot.

[Philip J. Fry]

It may be THE best performance by a child actor.

Specially for the level of difficulty.

[Wryan]

lol

https://www.indiewire.com/2020/02/ri...ies-1202213693

[Dukefrukem]

lol

https://www.indiewire.com/2020/02/ri...ies-1202213693

SPOILER ALERT!

[megladon8]

Right, but Kubrick had a much different "look" for his ending.
Gigolo Joe was going to be more of a "G.I." as well for Kubrick, and the sexuality was going to certainly be turned up. Cars were driving into open mouths and whatnot.

Cars drive into open mouths in the final product too.

[Ivan Drago]

A.I. is my personal favorite Spielberg movie, and in my top 10 of all time.

I also haven't revisited it since the first watch because it wrecks me just thinking about it.

[Dukefrukem]

23rd for me.

1. Jaws 1975
2. Close Encounters of the Third Kind 1977 ★★★★★
3. Jurassic Park 1993 ★★★★★
4. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade 1989 ★★★★★
5. E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial 1982 ★★★★★
6. Raiders of the Lost Ark 1981 ★★★★½
7. Saving Private Ryan 1998 ★★★★½
8. Minority Report 2002 ★★★★
9. Catch Me If You Can 2002 ★★★★
10. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom 1984 ★★★★
11. Hook 1991 ★★★★
12. The Adventures of Tintin 2011 ★★★★
13. Schindler’s List 1993 ★★★★
14. Duel 1971 ★★★½
15. The Lost World: Jurassic Park 1997 ★★★
16. The Post 2017 ★★½
17. Munich 2005 ★★½
18. Ready Player One 2018 ★★½
19. Lincoln 2012 ★★½
20. Empire of the Sun 1987 ★★½
21. War Horse 2011 ★★½
22. Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull 2008 ★★½
23. A.I. Artificial Intelligence 2001 ★★½
24. Bridge of Spies 2015 ★★
25. The BFG 2016 ★★
26. War of the Worlds 2005 ★★
27. The Terminal 2004 ★½

[Skitch]

The Terminal is underrated.

[Peng]

Escaping the other thread's slander...

5/5
Schindler’s List
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Jaws
E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial
Raiders of the Lost Ark

4.5/5
Jurassic Park

4/5
Minority Report
Catch Me If You Can
A.I. Artificial Intelligence
The Sugarland Express
Saving Private Ryan
War of the Worlds
The Post
Lincoln
Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
Empire of the Sun

3.5/5
Munich
Duel
Bridge of Spies
The Color Purple
Amistad
The Terminal
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
The Adventures of Tintin
Ready Player One

3/5
War Horse
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull
The Lost World: Jurassic Park
Hook
The BFG
Always
Twilight Zone: The Movie, “Kick the Can”

2.5/5
1941
Something Evil

[baby doll]

If you insist...

Spicy
Duel (1971)
Schindler's List (1993)
A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)

Warm
Jaws (1975)
Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977)
Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)
Minority Report (2002)

Mild
The Sugarland Express (1974)
Catch Me If You Can (2002)

Cold
War of the Worlds (2005)
Munich (2005)
Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (2008)
The Adventures of Tintin (2011)
War Horse (2011)

Frozen
The Terminal (2004)

It's been too long since I've seen E.T., Always, Hook, Jurassic Park, The Lost World, Amistad, or Saving Private Ryan to assess their level of spiciness.

[Skitch]

I'm surprised you have A.I. so high.

[StuSmallz]

Not to go off on a random rant here, but a lot of the lingering negative reactions I'm still seeing directed at movies like A Quiet Place solely based on their plot holes/implausibilities strike me as being motivated by this "gotcha!" mentality that's sprouted up online since the late 2000's, especially after CinemaSins got big (hurl), where people completely ignore underlying filmmaking craft in favor of harping on surface-level holes. Yes, AQP does have a few such holes in it, but they do not fundamentally ruin the film, and I say that not out of some personal bias to the film because I happened to like it personally, but because I've never seen any movie that was ruined because of plot holes, because plot and premise are mere means to an end, because they're irrelevant in light of the ultimate sensations that movies bring to us as viewers, and film is an art, not a science, so movies do not have to be perfect, clockwork-precision machines on a plot level, or even anywhere close to that, and acting like any of them should have to be that, especially a high-concept work like AQP, is just fundamentally misunderstanding the medium, IMO.

[transmogrifier]

I disagree. Plotting is as much a cinematic craft as anything else, and it is just as valid to fault a film (or praise a film) for that as for any other component of a film. You are free, like anyone else, to prioritize/deprioritize certain components based on personal preference/interest but claiming that others are "misunderstanding the medium" for what they value just sounds like gatekeeping to me.

[Grouchy]

The Terminal is underrated.

The Terminal is an awful, awful movie.

I disagree. Plotting is as much a cinematic craft as anything else, and it is just as valid to fault a film (or praise a film) for that as for any other component of a film. You are free, like anyone else, to prioritize/deprioritize certain components based on personal preference/interest but claiming that others are "misunderstanding the medium" for what they value just sounds like gatekeeping to me.

There's an excellent Patrick H. Wilems video addressing this:



By the way, every once in a while YouTube throws some CinemaSins video at me, I watch some of it and remain completely mystified that someone out there finds those guys even remotely funny.

[TGM]

A video he made for the sole purpose of then doing a follow up video on The Last Jedi that allowed him to blindly praise the film without having to acknowledge all the poor scriptwork and the ridiculous amount of plot inconsistencies it presents to the series.

[Peng]

*looking at the series in poster's avatar*

[Grouchy]

A video he made for the sole purpose of then doing a follow up video on The Last Jedi that allowed him to blindly praise the film without having to acknowledge all the poor scriptwork and the ridiculous amount of plot inconsistencies it presents to the series.

Eh, I think he's correct in both videos. The Last Jedi is by far the greatest Star Wars film after the OT.

[baby doll]

I'm surprised you have A.I. so high.

I don't think it's all that surprising, especially when you consider that it's the closest Spielberg has come to making an arthouse film, both in terms of its episodic plot construction, and more significantly, the ambivalent and often downright contradictory emotions it elicits in the viewer.

Incidentally, I have little patience with people who construct their own idea of what Kubrick's version would've looked like as a kind of Platonic ideal and then fault the movie "betraying" their idea of Kubrick's vision. We don't know what Kubrick's version would've looked like because he didn't make the film, and I can't imagine a bigger waste of time than jerking off to preproduction materials for a film that doesn't exist.

[Skitch]

Incidentally, I have little patience with people who construct their own idea of what Kubrick's version would've looked like as a kind of Platonic ideal and then fault the movie "betraying" their idea of Kubrick's vision. We don't know what Kubrick's version would've looked like because he didn't make the film, and I can't imagine a bigger waste of time than jerking off to preproduction materials for a film that doesn't exist.

I agree.

[Grouchy]

Incidentally, I have little patience with people who construct their own idea of what Kubrick's version would've looked like as a kind of Platonic ideal and then fault the movie "betraying" their idea of Kubrick's vision. We don't know what Kubrick's version would've looked like because he didn't make the film, and I can't imagine a bigger waste of time than jerking off to preproduction materials for a film that doesn't exist.

Eh, I think defending Kubrick's vision against Spielberg's rendition is indeed a bit silly, but the activity in bold actually sounds like quite a useful learning experience for anyone interested in how films get made from the page to the final product.