[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: "My God. It's full of stars" ( was: re: A.I.)
On Thu, 19 Jul 2001, Brad Caviness wrote:
> Kubrick's vision of mankind is much bleaker, much more prone to
> showcase mankind's proclivity for self-destruction. And in that
> context, "2001" may not necessarily be a vision of the future, so much
> as a fantasy for getting the heck out of the madness.
this makes me want to see 2001... i tried reading the books, but i got
bored.
horrible confession: i like arthur c clarke, but someitmes he is just
boring. i have to wade through more of his stuff to find things that are
really good than the normal sci-fi author... although, the same could be
said for theodore spurgeon.
> I would have no problem buying that the movie was totally a Kubrick
> vehicle if it had ended with David trapped on the ocean floor. Or even
> if the bits with the 41st century robots were still there,
wierd thing, i liked the voice over, but i really thought it was ove rwhen
they showed the ice everywhere. but we're almost programmed to think about
endings when we see no viable life forms left... intent? upbringing?
culture? are we so rooted to the natural world, that even those removed
so much that they live in suqare boxes, etc - can't imagine life with
..life? don't you dfind it funny that with the advent of this movie, all
the sudden there's more ecological awareness of ice caps and stuff?
coincidence? capitlising one upon the other?
> but David's day with his mother was less than he had hoped for. As it
> is, the ending of the movie is quintessentially Spielberg in the same
> way that "Hook" is quintessentially Spielberg.
was it? i forget who commented that 'how could he have grown enough to be
mature that he would choose that one last day?' well - his whole quest was
to have his mommy back. to have her love and attention... so of course
he'd grab that one day. i find it hard to believe from a comp-sci
standpoint that he wasn't a neural net - which means he can learn from
feedback... which means he must've gotten something right somewhere. i
found it interesting tha thenry never bonded with david. why? did anyone
else find it slightly sociopathic, this aobsessive love? why is it
endearing in a little boy, but not in a man or woman? what makes his quest
so noble? i liked the fairytale aspects of the movie, and even the ending.
'that endless moment'...
about henry - did it mean to imply that women bond more easily? was it
ever intended ftruly for the childless couple? it doesn't seem as if they
ever addressed how to multiply bond. there was some wierd competition
impleied only at the end between henry and david, and that only through
the narrator.
> Jude Law is a hottie, though, even if he is a bad dancer. And did
> Robin Williams' cameo smack to anyone else too much of "The Last
> Starfighter"?
jude law looked scary. very polished and pretty.
> Which brings me to another question.... do the robots at the end of
> the film read our computer user manuals and stereo instructions with
> the same gravity we read the Bible?
! (= it's a good thing tere' so few people around here today, or they'd be
wondering more at the laughter...
although, i imagine they'd be more like rosetta stones (:
rhys
--
Time passed . . . Dirk Gently' Holistic Detective Agency, Douglas Adams
---------------
Unsubscribe by going to http://www.actwin.com/MediaNation/OtR/
Follow-Ups:
References: