![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Jun. 30th, 2001 04:29 amJune 29, 2001
Once again, brevity dictated by lateness.
Saw "A.I", by Steven Spielberg. It's very good, but falls short of greatness. And before you Spielberg-bashers jump, I don't know that Stanley Kubrick would have been able to pull it off any better. I think the source material is too problematic. Spielberg actually acquits himself quite well, in my opinion-the look of the film is AMAZING. The film is a terrific blend of Spielberg's style with Kubrick's tone, and there are definite shades of "2001" and "A Clockwork Orange". Haley Joel Osment establishes himself as one of the premier actors of the day-the kid's the real deal, folks. Jude Law and Frances O'Connor also give good performances, and it's god to see William Hurt again doing material that is up to his level of talent. All in all, it's a film I recommend, but I have reservations.
I had a thought while typing the "Spielberg-bashers" bit above. Why are so many so-called "fans" (or worse, "students") of film so quick to prejudge, to form an opinion on a film before they've seen it? Is it a control thing-are they (the "fans") upset that the filmmakers aren't doing exactly what *they* would do? Is it pre-emptive-by slagging before seeing, do they save themselves from having to actually form an opinion? The way I see it, if you go in expecting to hate a film, you'll likely come out with your expectation affirmed. If you go in thinking that anything is possible, then you are more likely to get an honest reaction.
Same paradigm can be applied to a lot of things, can't it?
Today's Link Of The Day is the Gilbert And Sullivan Parody Archive. I've been getting more and more into G&S since seeing Mike Leigh's "Topsy-Turvy". The Parody archive links you to, well, parodies of their songs on any number of subjects. Check it out: http://www.lightjunkie.org/parody/
JHR
6/30/2001 4:28 AM
Once again, brevity dictated by lateness.
Saw "A.I", by Steven Spielberg. It's very good, but falls short of greatness. And before you Spielberg-bashers jump, I don't know that Stanley Kubrick would have been able to pull it off any better. I think the source material is too problematic. Spielberg actually acquits himself quite well, in my opinion-the look of the film is AMAZING. The film is a terrific blend of Spielberg's style with Kubrick's tone, and there are definite shades of "2001" and "A Clockwork Orange". Haley Joel Osment establishes himself as one of the premier actors of the day-the kid's the real deal, folks. Jude Law and Frances O'Connor also give good performances, and it's god to see William Hurt again doing material that is up to his level of talent. All in all, it's a film I recommend, but I have reservations.
I had a thought while typing the "Spielberg-bashers" bit above. Why are so many so-called "fans" (or worse, "students") of film so quick to prejudge, to form an opinion on a film before they've seen it? Is it a control thing-are they (the "fans") upset that the filmmakers aren't doing exactly what *they* would do? Is it pre-emptive-by slagging before seeing, do they save themselves from having to actually form an opinion? The way I see it, if you go in expecting to hate a film, you'll likely come out with your expectation affirmed. If you go in thinking that anything is possible, then you are more likely to get an honest reaction.
Same paradigm can be applied to a lot of things, can't it?
Today's Link Of The Day is the Gilbert And Sullivan Parody Archive. I've been getting more and more into G&S since seeing Mike Leigh's "Topsy-Turvy". The Parody archive links you to, well, parodies of their songs on any number of subjects. Check it out: http://www.lightjunkie.org/parody/
JHR
6/30/2001 4:28 AM
