Last Movie You Watched

[71 dB]

This has all the annoying features of a Spielberg movie. Still, there's more here, something better. It's still worth the price of admission even when it inevitably causes frustration. Maybe Kubrick is the key.

Wonderful movie! Spielberg is my favourite director and this movie feels like Spielberg had asked me what kind of movie I want to see.
I consider A.I. the greatest movie by Spielberg alongside with Schindler's List.

[aligreto]

I know someone in IT who is taking a another degree and majoring in AI. In a relevant discussion I was somewhat disconcerted to discover that AI is nothing but a series of zeros and ones.

[Papy Oli]

I know someone in IT who is taking a another degree and majoring in AI. In a relevant discussion I was somewhat disconcerted to discover that AI is nothing but a series of zeros and ones.

This movie got a zero from me, not even a one  The only movie I ever walked out of at the pictures, after 10-15 minutes  0:)

[DavidW]

I know someone in IT who is taking a another degree and majoring in AI. In a relevant discussion I was somewhat disconcerted to discover that AI is nothing but a series of zeros and ones.

I think the AI in your friend's context probably means machine learning algorithms to crunch big data sets instead of say creating an android.  The former is really hot right now in CS for obvious reasons.

[LKB]

This movie got a zero from me, not even a one  The only movie I ever walked out of at the pictures, after 10-15 minutes  0:)

Years from now, you may feel differently.

There was a time when Shostakovich had no value whatsoever for me, even after performing his Symphony no. 1. I simply couldn't relate to him at all.

Years later, I've memorized his symphonies 5,6,8, 11 and 13.

AI is neither the best of Spielberg nor the best of Kubrick, yet it remains at least marginally worthy of both. I would respectfully suggest that it is worth more than 15 minutes of anyone's time.

Cheers,

LKB

[milk]

Years from now, you may feel differently.

There was a time when Shostakovich had no value whatsoever for me, even after performing his Symphony no. 1. I simply couldn't relate to him at all.

Years later, I've memorized his symphonies 5,6,8, 11 and 13.

AI is neither the best of Spielberg nor the best of Kubrick, yet it remains at least marginally worthy of both. I would respectfully suggest that it is worth more than 15 minutes of anyone's time.

Cheers,

LKB

I agree, though it's hard to recommend it unequivocally. And one can't rate a movie that one didn't see. That first part Papy walked out on is kind of annoying though it becomes necessary later. It's an odd movie. At times it seems to take this easy road in order to get cheap sentiment. But somehow it adds up to much more than that. It has something more to say but one has to stick it out a long ways to get there.
Science Fiction cinema is very hard to do well. There are only a handful of really good sci-fi films. 

[71 dB]

Calling Spielberg's movies cheap sentiment is like calling Mozart's music trivial. Spielberg is a visual genius, a superb visual storyteller. The way he combines movement in different directions in the frame, the way he frames his shots at millimetre accuracy, the way he employs the rules of picture composition, the way he uses camera movement, lenses and avoids cuts by moving the camera within a shot for close ups etc. His craft is the culmination of the innovative art by the likes of Orson Welles and John Ford.

It is okay if you don't like his movies. We all have our taste, but it is silly say he is anything less than a master of his craft. As a visual storyteller he is as good as they come.

[Madiel]

It's fascinating simply because it is so clearly both a Kubrick movie and a Spielberg movie.

I suspect though that there aren't an enormous number of people who are both Kubrick fans and Spielberg fans.

[SonicMan46]

News of the World (2020) w/ Tom Hanks & Helena Zengel - short synopsis quoted below - watched last night (rental streamed from Amazon Prime Video) - really enjoyed - reviews: 88% Rotten Tomatoes (89% audience); 6.8, IMDB; 4.4/5, Amazon - I'd have to agree w/ the RTers on this one and would rate a 4*/5* on Amazon - a different tale of the west centered in post-Civil War Texas (based on a 2016 novel) - recommended.  Dave

P.S. Helena Zengel is a 12 y/o German actress and a beautiful girl - she has been nominated for many awards for her first international film appearance - check link if interested.

Five years after the end of the Civil War, Capt. Jefferson Kyle Kidd crosses paths with a 10-year-old girl taken by the Kiowa people. Forced to return to her aunt and uncle, Kidd agrees to escort the child across the harsh and unforgiving plains of Texas. However, the long journey soon turns into a fight for survival as the traveling companions encounter danger at every turn -- both human and natural.

 

[DavidW]

Dave I've felt like I've seen that western several times over!  Not exactly breaking new ground.   But I'll probably watch it at some point.

[DavidW]

Talking about not breaking new ground I watched Godzilla vs Kong.  It was good stupid fun.  And great to watch on a large tv.  It is a shame that it doesn't get to command the box office, I feel like the size made it more of a theatrical experience.

[SonicMan46]

Dave I've felt like I've seen that western several times over!  Not exactly breaking new ground.   But I'll probably watch it at some point.

Well, there is a 'different twist' to this western story, i.e. how the main character (Hanks) earns a meager living, but won't give the plot away - and the warm relationship that develops between him and the girl adds yet a different nuance - now, I've seen most and own many John Wayne westerns and have never seen 'The Duke' in this kind of role -    Dave

[DavidW]

Well, there is a 'different twist' to this western story, i.e. how the main character (Hanks) earns a meager living, but won't give the plot away - and the warm relationship that develops between him and the girl adds yet a different nuance - now, I've seen most and own many John Wayne westerns and have never seen 'The Duke' in this kind of role -    Dave

Oh okay that is intriguing.  I'll give it a watch soon.

[SonicMan46]

It wasn't the airplanes. It was Beauty killed the Beast.

King Kong (2005) w/ Andy Serkis (as Kong in 'motion capture'), Naomi Watts, Jack Black, Adrien Brody et al; Peter Jackson, Director - decided to replace my BD w/ a digital 4K UHD digital version from Amazon Prime Video (listened on headphones - sound and video spectacular).  The film is too long (3 hrs), so watched over 2 nights; some of the jungle scenes could have been shortened and/or eliminated but just my opinion. There are two other versions, i.e. the original from 1933 (own on BD and still a 'stop motion' classic) and the rather poorer remake from 1976 with Jeff Bridges and Jessica Lange. 

This Jackson remake is visually and aurally stunning - nominated for 4 Oscars, and winner of 3 (Sound mixing, sound editing, and visual effects).  Andy Serkis' efforts in 'motion capture' of the Kong character are quoted below.  Reviews were mixed: Rotten Tomatoes, 84% from critics but 50% for the audience; IMDB, 7.2/10; Amazon, 4.6/5 - my rating on Amazon ranges from 3.5 (too long; emotional attachment of Watts to Kong overdone) to 4.5 (outstanding visuals, sound, and special effects, especially in the jungle scenes), SO let me just go for 4*/5* if leaving an Amazon review.  If a 'King Kong Fan', owning the 1933 original (now on BD as mentioned) is a MUST; the 2005 version is a great 'modern' update despite its length; also own Kong: Skull Island (2017) and recommend a watch; not a big fan of Kong vs. other 'creatures', such as Godzilla, BUT the new one mentioned by DavidW will likely be a rental.  Dave

Serkis was cast as Kong and prepared himself by working with gorillas at the London Zoo. He then traveled to Rwanda, observing the actions and behaviors of gorillas in the wild; the detailed facial performance capture with Serkis was accomplished because of the similarities between human and gorilla faces. Photos of silverback gorillas were also superimposed on Kong's image in the early stages of animation. Serkis had to go through two hours of motion capture makeup every day, having 135 small markers attached to different spots on his face. Following principal photography, Serkis had to spend an additional two months on a motion capture stage, miming Kong's movements for the film's digital animators. (edited Source)

 

[DavidW]

I like that King Kong but I prefer the 1933.  I think there might have been a remake from the 70s?  I haven't seen that one.

Oh Dave, if you didn't know the Indiana Jones movies are releasing on 4k this June.

[Brahmsian]

I like that King Kong but I prefer the 1933.  I think there might have been a remake from the 70s?  I haven't seen that one.

Oh Dave, if you didn't know the Indiana Jones movies are releasing on 4k this June.

Dave and David,

I actually prefer the 1977 remake of King Kong (with the beautiful Jessica Lange, and Jeff Bridges) over the 2005 remake. However, hard to beat the 1933 original and also had a wonderful soundtrack.

[DavidW]

Dave and David,

I actually prefer the 1977 remake of King Kong (with the beautiful Jessica Lange, and Jeff Bridges) over the 2005 remake. However, hard to beat the 1933 original and also had a wonderful soundtrack.

Oh that is on HBO Max (I just checked).  I'll have to give it a watch.

[André]

Dave and David,

I actually prefer the 1977 remake of King Kong (with the beautiful Jessica Lange, and Jeff Bridges) over the 2005 remake. However, hard to beat the 1933 original and also had a wonderful soundtrack.

My opinion exactly. Despite its age and crude effects the 1933 movie still has the novelty effect. And in the 1977 remake Jessica Lange is adorable. One can understand the beast's feelings.

[SonicMan46]

Dave and David,

I actually prefer the 1977 remake of King Kong (with the beautiful Jessica Lange, and Jeff Bridges) over the 2005 remake. However, hard to beat the 1933 original and also had a wonderful soundtrack.

Well, Guys, I guess that a re-watch of the 1970s King Kong is needed; in all honesty, probably saw just once way back then and really cannot remember - Bridges & Lang were in their prime then - BUT I agree the 'mother lode' is the 1933 original - quote below from Wiki's Ray Harryhausen's bio - after seeing King Kong (1933) as a young teen, he was apparently awe-struck and like a lightening bolt, the experience chose his life-long career - an oft repeated story. Dave

After having seen King Kong (1933) on its initial release for the first of many times, Harryhausen spent his early years experimenting in the production of animated shorts. The scenes utilising stop-motion animation, those featuring creatures on the island or Kong, were the work of pioneer model animator Willis O'Brien. His work in King Kong inspired Harryhausen, and a friend arranged a meeting with O'Brien for him. O'Brien critiqued Harryhausen's early models and urged him to take classes in graphic arts and sculpture. Taking O'Brien's advice, while still at high school, Harryhausen took evening classes in art direction, photography and editing at the School of Cinematic Arts at the University of Southern California, where he would later serve as a lecturer. Meanwhile, he became friends with an aspiring writer, Ray Bradbury, with similar enthusiasms. Bradbury and Harryhausen joined the Los Angeles-area Science Fiction League formed by Forrest J. Ackerman in 1939, and the three became lifelong friends. (Source)

[vers la flamme]

Tous les matins du monde



Man, what a beautiful movie. Highly recommended.