• Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!

Never knew Roger Ebert added AI: Artificial Intelligence to his Great Movies list

Status
Not open for further replies.
I just googled that Players Club review.

``The Players Club'' observant and insightful; beneath its melodrama lurks unsentimental information about why young women do lap dances for a living, and what they think about themselves and their customers.

Onto this semi-documentary material is grafted a crime story involving the mysterious St. Louis, a gangster who is owed a lot of money by Dollar Bill (Bernie Mac),
Click to expand...

lol
 
0T5ls.png
 
Bombadil said:
He gave the first Matrix film two stars and the Matrix Reloaded three stars, so right away I take everything he says with a grain of salt.

He also gave a scathing review of Fight Club. He's given positive reviews to some really stupid movies. He gave that awful Zookeeper movie (starring Kevin James) three stars.
Click to expand...

His Fight Club review is fantastic.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/19991015/REVIEWS/910150302/1023

Of course, "Fight Club" itself does not advocate Durden's philosophy. It is a warning against it, I guess; one critic I like says it makes "a telling point about the bestial nature of man and what can happen when the numbing effects of day-to-day drudgery cause people to go a little crazy." I think it's the numbing effects of movies like this that cause people go to a little crazy. Although sophisticates will be able to rationalize the movie as an argument against the behavior it shows, my guess is that audience will like the behavior but not the argument. Certainly they'll buy tickets because they can see Pitt and Norton pounding on each other; a lot more people will leave this movie and get in fights than will leave it discussing Tyler Durden's moral philosophy. The images in movies like this argue for themselves, and it takes a lot of narration (or Narration) to argue against them.
Click to expand...

That is some pretty fucking prescient insight.
 
I really liked AI, but can understand why people dislike it. It definately feels like a Speilberg film instead of a Kubrick film. AI is one of those films where I revel in its melodrama simply because the themes explored relate to me on an utterly personal level even if it wears its cheese proudly on its shirt.
 
GillianSeed79 said:
I really liked AI, but can understand why people dislike it. It definately feels like a Speilberg film instead of a Kubrick film. AI is one of those films where I revel in its melodrama simply because the themes explored relate to me on an utterly personal level even if it wears its cheese proudly on its shirt.
Click to expand...

I think it is close to what Kubrick would have wanted the film to be, minus the awkward Chris Rock and Robin Williams cameos that were just distracting. I also think Kubrick would have used a lot less exposition during the ending and it would have even been more open to interpretation then it already is.
 
aerts1js said:
A.I. is a great movie! I never really understood the hate it got.
Click to expand...

Same. I loved it. Great atmosphere in it.

C4Lukins said:
I think it is close to what Kubrick would have wanted the film to be, minus the awkward Chris Rock and Robin Williams cameos that were just distracting. I also think Kubrick would have used a lot less exposition during the ending and it would have even been more open to interpretation then it already is.
Click to expand...
I agree with this. Like I said, the atmosphere is really great in it -- same feel Kubricks movies give off.
 
Darknessbear said:
Same. I loved it. Great atmosphere in it.


I agree with this. Like I said, the atmosphere is really great in it -- same feel Kubricks movies give off.
Click to expand...
I think the first hour of the movie feels like Kubrick and and second hour, when the story opens up, feels like Spielberg. The Chris Rock and Robin Williams scenes never would have been in a Kubrick movie IMO .... And I bet both the Flesh Fair and Rouge City would have been completely different under Kubricks direction
 
That man isn't a robot made to classify in the most neutral and efficient of the efforts what he sees, he is (I suppose) like everyone with preferences, changes of mood and living experiences that define us. A critic must criticize their own stances and reflect on this according to what they feel at the moment. To try to appease others by a so-called "general" opinion is worthless, only used by some to hear what they want to hear, and not think about it in the end.

As I see it, a critic isn't something made to be agreeable or deniable, but a reference point, to see the questions that rises and compare them with your own, and asses what is in there for you that could be interesting even if it isn't shared the same point of view. A support. What makes a critic interesting is the way in which he exposes those feelings (that attract us), and not what its opinion ultimately says.
 
icarus-daedelus said:
If you're paying attention, it's pretty clear what the quote-unquote aliens are. The common misinterpretaion makes no narrative, thematic, or even visual (video faces) sense. You'd have to ignore the entire thrust of the movie to come to that conclusion.

The misinterpretation is quite telling, but not about the movie itself.
Click to expand...

So for the 75%+ people that thought they were aliens(So far I've only seen some people on GAF know they were robots when they watched it, everyone I know in rl thinks they were robots) the fault was 100% on them and not the movie? Come on.
 
I think I read that Kubrick had planned the film to take place almost completely at the house... so yeah I suspect it would have been a very different film.
 
Karma Kramer said:
I think I read that Kubrick had planned the film to take place almost completely at the house... so yeah I suspect it would have been a very different film.
Click to expand...

Nah. In the Kubrick Archives, pretty much the entire story is the same - minus the bit with the flesh fare. He still gets left by Monica in the forest.
 
Scullibundo said:
Nah. In the Kubrick Archives, pretty much the entire story is the same - minus the bit with the flesh fare. He still gets left by Monica in the forest.
Click to expand...

Yeah you are correct, I mistook that from a Chris Cunningham interview:

Pitchfork: As a big Kubrick fan, I have to ask you what it was like working with him on pre-production for his A.I. project.

Cunningham: I started working with him when I was 23 but I wasn't intimidated. I was at a point where I was starting to become pretty obsessed with my own plans. I was pretty distracted mentally. I'm a fan of his but I've never been a Kubrick obsessive. The first time I saw The Shining and A Clockwork Orange was when I was 18 and 19. When I was a kid the only film of his I'd seen was 2001.

Pitchfork: What was he like?

Cunningham: Normal. There's nothing to report of any interest. There's some kind of bizarre mythology built up around him but he is just a normal human being.

Pitchfork: What did you think of Steven Spielberg's A.I.?

Cunningham: It's not really my cup of tea. The first third is the best sci-fi material in the last 20 years. That should have been the whole film. But what do I know, it's Steven Speilberg, innit? You can't criticize Spielberg. [laughs] If I had been given that script I definitely would have hacked off the last two-thirds and did it all in that house-- it would have been cheaper.
Click to expand...

I honestly agree with him on this. Maybe Kubrick would have done a better job with the rest of the story, but the film kept losing steam as it went past the first act.
 
can't stand ebert, even as a turn-around opinion this doesn't contain any interesting insight. white waxed over this film 10 years ago and wrote two excellent pieces, if you're hampering for a fascinating critique of A.I. they're the ticket.
 
I remember the movie being a bit slow but I liked it.

At first I was a bit confused about the ending, but then I figured it out, since it's the only ending that makes sense.
 
Amir0x said:
yup. People often cite the way he felt about 2001 Space Odyssey originally and then later and go "omg, see, Ebert can't even keep his own impressions straight", but the mark of a truly respectable critic is one who is open to re-evaluating his own stances and allowing his growth as a person to inform his interpretation of the art. He has new perspective on what it meant, and thus freely adjusted his opinion.

This is called growing as a person and the best know what it's about.
Click to expand...
But it's A.I., so I would argue that he is shrinking as a person.
 
EmmanuelMunoz said:
I love that he's willing to take another look at films he feels deserve it.

One of his funniest reviews: Sex and the City 2
Click to expand...

I remember reading this and my respect for Ebert shot up tremendously despite disagreeing with a lot of his reviews.

Some of these people make my skin crawl. The characters of "Sex and the City 2" are flyweight bubbleheads living in a world which rarely requires three sentences in a row. Their defining quality is consuming things. They gobble food, fashion, houses, husbands, children, vitamins and freebies. They must plan their wardrobes on the phone, so often do they appear in different basic colors, like the plugs you pound into a Playskool workbench.
Click to expand...

Ether.
 
Ebert said:
Of course we must ask in what sense Monica is really there. The filmmaker Jamie Stuart informs me she is not there at all; that an illusion has merely been implanted in David's mind, and that the concluding scenes take place entirely within David's point of view. Having downloaded all of David's memories and knowledge, the new mechas have no further use for him, but provide him a final day of satisfaction before terminating him. At the end, when we are told he is dreaming, that is only David's impression. Earlier in the film, it was established that he could not sleep or therefore dream.
Click to expand...

This blows my mind. I remember watching this so many years ago at the theater, but never picked up on this.

It makes me want to watch the movie again, or look for a blu ray.
 
His original review was accurate. First 2/3rds of the movie was awesome. Last 1/3rd is trite, and the ending is laughable.
 
A.I. is a great movie. Criticizing it for its sentimentality is to miss the point; machines cannot feel sentiment. It is a defining human characteristic though, and given the premise of the story is that David's "love" is real, even though he isn't, is expressive of the central theme and metaphysics of the drama.

Its also a wonderful film visually; the collapse of the submerged ferris wheel is one of the most iconic scenes Spielberg ever shot, and absolutely worthy of the same respect as Kubrick's finest imagery.

Performances are excellent throughout also, Haley Joel Osmont particularly does an amazing job for such a young performer in a very demanding role.

The funny thing for me is how some people get so angry about a movie being emotionally manipulative, as if trying to move an audience is somehow a bad thing! Why are they being so protective of their feelings when watching something as innocuous and transient as work of fiction? Being so guarded and defensive serves no purpose under such circumstances; its not showing strength of character or judgement, its actually more the inverse.
 
I need to watch A.I. again. I thought it should have ended in the car underwater. It would have been a dark, sad ending but Speilburg never does them. It dragged on and became another movie really.

Gigalo Joe was just the best though. A great character. I was truly sad to see him go.
 
Loved this movie on rewatch. Hasn't even really dated. Robits still look like ALiens at the end. Big willowy Spielberg-esque aliens.
 
apesh1t said:
wait, they were robots at the end?

I like saying Haley Joel Omelette, shame about his head to face ratio, though.
Click to expand...

Of course they were robots. Jude Law has a rather intense line where he says "In the end, there will only be us", foreshadowing that humanity would eventually go extinct leaving only AI behind as their legacy. The robots at the end were some super advanced AI from long after humans went extinct. Finding David was like finding a time capsule into the past when their ancestors and creators still existed.

They downloaded his knowledge then tried to give him a day of happiness because they felt sorry for him. His entire existence was about being loved by his mother and loving her back but she was gone and he would serve no purpose in this new world without mothers.
 
Amir0x said:
yup. People often cite the way he felt about 2001 Space Odyssey originally and then later and go "omg, see, Ebert can't even keep his own impressions straight", but the mark of a truly respectable critic is one who is open to re-evaluating his own stances and allowing his growth as a person to inform his interpretation of the art. He has new perspective on what it meant, and thus freely adjusted his opinion.

This is called growing as a person and the best know what it's about.
Click to expand...

they do? wasn't ebert one of the critics to praise 2001 when it was first released?
 
Having just watched AI a few weeks back, I disagree with this interpretation. There is no reason for the robots to lie to David and they say repeatedly how he is an endearing legacy of the human race. I do not think there really is enough to say for sure Monica is real or not but the ending is so ambiguous that is difficult to say. Did he finally find his 'soul'? Did he just 'fall' asleep? Personally, I like to believe he did indeed go to the land where dreams are born....../sniff.
 
I like the end of the movie. It is very 'big picture'. I think it is just too big picture for most people so they don't like it. People don't want to think about big things.
 
JB1981 said:
Funny that you mention Minority Report. Ebert named MR the best movie of its year so its absence on this list puzzles me. I would much rather get more AI and Minority Report-style movies from Spielberg rather than Tintin or War Horse.
Click to expand...

Same here since I think those were his best films of the decade (and some of the best films of the 00s too) shouts out to Munich as well but I preferred his scifi output. Even war of the worlds was good but not quite as good
 
John Dunbar said:
they do? wasn't ebert one of the critics to praise 2001 when it was first released?
Click to expand...

Hm, that's so bizarre. I read an article about some critic - thought it was Ebert, but now... - that said that when they first saw 2001 when it came out, they didn't like it and didn't get it and they criticized it deeply. And then they said as they got older and rewatched the film, they began to appreciate what it was going for and started to love it.

Now I am really curious as to who this was
 
Charles Foster Kane said:
He is the only one I really like, not without his fuck ups though (Crash & Juno best movies of their years lol).
Click to expand...

Even so, Crash and Juno are still good films. At least, I enjoyed them. Best of their years? Not in my opinion, but that's sort of the point.

While I have you, I'll say that during my lurking days, I was always impressed by your posts about cinema (Expendable's as well). On the MLG Forums (where I've been a member for eight years) there is a General Film/Television Thread. It's basically a MovieGAF OT. Perhaps you can answer this for me: How come GAF doesn't have an equivalent? I always thought that kind of thread would be a hit here.
 
Amir0x said:
Hm, that's so bizarre. I read an article about some critic - thought it was Ebert, but now... - that said that when they first saw 2001 when it came out, they didn't like it and didn't get it and they criticized it deeply. And then they said as they got older and rewatched the film, they began to appreciate what it was going for and started to love it.

Now I am really curious as to who this was
Click to expand...

I know Woody Allen said something like that. He mentioned it on the documentary about Kubrick's movies, he got to appreciate it years later. Not a critic, I know, but interesting.

Thug Waffle said:
Even so, Crash and Juno are still good films. At least, I enjoyed them. Best of their years? Not in my opinion, but that's sort of the point.

While I have you, I'll say that during my lurking days, I was always impressed by your posts about cinema (Expendable's as well). On the MLG Forums (where I've been a member for eight years) there is a General Film/Television Thread. It's basically a MovieGAF OT. Perhaps you can answer this for me: How come GAF doesn't have an equivalent? I always thought that kind of thread would be a hit here.
Click to expand...

I haven't really been posting for long here :P. I don't know what you're referring too, we have the Movies you've seen thread. That's our movie OT, where many of movie gaf gather.
 
Clear said:
A.I. is a great movie. Criticizing it for its sentimentality is to miss the point; machines cannot feel sentiment. It is a defining human characteristic though, and given the premise of the story is that David's "love" is real, even though he isn't, is expressive of the central theme and metaphysics of the drama.

Its also a wonderful film visually; the collapse of the submerged ferris wheel is one of the most iconic scenes Spielberg ever shot, and absolutely worthy of the same respect as Kubrick's finest imagery.

Performances are excellent throughout also, Haley Joel Osmont particularly does an amazing job for such a young performer in a very demanding role.

The funny thing for me is how some people get so angry about a movie being emotionally manipulative, as if trying to move an audience is somehow a bad thing! Why are they being so protective of their feelings when watching something as innocuous and transient as work of fiction? Being so guarded and defensive serves no purpose under such circumstances; its not showing strength of character or judgement, its actually more the inverse.
Click to expand...

High Five!
 
Roger Ebert is an idiot and his opinion is shit.

That said, A.I. wasn't too bad. Not my favorite Spielberg film but it still had its own charm.
 
Really enjoyed it but I would've liked to see Teddy's eternal patience be David's. There's just something so infinitely sad about just sitting, waiting, doing absolutely nothing for 2000yrs.
 
I re-watched this not too long ago. I still teared up at the ending. It's still one of my favourite science fiction films of all-time. I never really understood the negative mist of opinion that seems to surround it. I loved it when I first saw it and still love it when I watch it now. One of Spielberg's greatest films IMO.
 
I don't agree with his reviews all the time but nonetheless I enjoy reading his reviews. AI wasn't good film tho.
 
BrokenEchelon said:
Roger Ebert is an idiot and his opinion is shit.

That said, A.I. wasn't too bad. Not my favorite Spielberg film but it still had its own charm.
Click to expand...

He's better than Kermode. That guy's the biggest twat reviewer ever. I like Armond White more than him.

And also as much as I disagree with Ebert, putting Tree of Life and AI in the greatest films of all time list is fine by me.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Idea For AI TV Remote For Ad Blocking
11
316
ReBurn replied
Little Torn On AI
40
632
Tams replied
Val Kilmer Resurrected by AI to Star in ‘As Deep as the Grave’ Movie
2
51
755
EverydayBeast replied
Claude AI might be the weirdest AI experience I've had yet.
29
446
DarkShadowXI replied
Want to kill someone? AI here's to help!
6
280
NeoIkaruGAF replied
Top Bottom