Log in

No account? Create an account
Sauce1977 [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]

[ Userinfo | Sauce1977 Userinfo ]
[ Archive | Sauce1977 Archive ]

Vanilla Sky . . . I Live . . . for . . . [Mar. 17th, 2004|01:00 am]
[In the Moment |touchedtouched]
[Special Music |Haunting DVD Menu Music for Vanilla Sky]

I live for films like Vanilla Sky.

Jacob's Ladder, AI, What Dreams May Come, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, Requiem for a Dream, A Clockwork Orange, Monty Python's The Meaning of Life, many more that are on the horizon of my memory, they move me internally, like all great films do.

I forgot about my laundry with Vanilla Sky.

That's a pretty good film, one capable of such feats.

From: puppytron
2004-03-18 07:21 am (UTC)
AI problems

Firstly, I have to say how excited I was about this feature. I love Kubrick so much…the problem is I hate speilberg. I used to love spielburg, but I'm sick of the attitude that he can do know wrong. very upset he will be making a Tintin movie too...

Second, the original story for this film was bastardized "Super Pets Last the Summer Long" was really good. I hate anything that the original content gets lost in a screenplay wriuter or director's vision. Its not cool.

Third. The Pinochio similarities were WAYYYY over the top…instead of making subtle references and trusting the audience's ability to see the similarities, he basically made it the retelling of the tale, but then fell short on not following thru with it, i.e. there were no wolf and fox to tempt him, yet they had the "Pleaure Island" aspect in the big corrupt city, and the Cricket concept in Teddy…but no whale…also, the little wooden boy searching for Blue faerie got old and overstated

The one thing I loved about this movie is something no one agrees with me on…that this is the first resurgence of what would be considered the return of the Classic greek tragedy. When I say tragedy, I mean a drama that has the protaganist fill the role of the antagonist as well…a character who does not reconcile / learn a lesson / change by the end of the feature. David was just as much the same tragic character he was at th eend of the film as he was at the beginning. Because he is a robot that cannot change his programming, he cannot be a dynamic character (dynamic characters reconcile their differences in a dramatic piece or literature…they come to a conclusion and change by the end) David's quest to find his mother was met by repeated failures and failures…and the audience was waiting for him to realize she isnt the right mother for him. We were waiting for him to find his way. In the end his "wish" was the penultimate tragedy. After everything, he just wanted his mom back…and the scene where her clone was alive briefly just churned my stomach. This bitch left him on the side of th eroad. This was disturbing that this was the big happy ending.

I wish they wouldbve made this an "ugly duckling" story instead…i.e. David you are not an ugly human, you are a beautiful android" but the ending was further tragic, because he again, by the film's end is stuck in an ironic twist, that he is still an outsider among th erobots of the future that found him at the bottom of the ocean…beause he is an outdated model…he will never be one of them just like he will never be a real little boy.

A happy ending wouldve been for the robots to make him one of them…

I could go on and on and on….

Bicentenial Man was a much more superior film. Brilliant.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: puppytron
2004-03-18 07:23 am (UTC)
p.s. oh yeah, i forgot that it was shitty the way he also fell short on trying to make it a "wizard of Oz" retelling along with the pinochio. it just didnt work.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2004-03-18 04:13 pm (UTC)
Yeah, he certainly crammed too much into it. It wasn't all symmetrical and subtle.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2004-03-18 04:11 pm (UTC)
Oh man!

You make some wonderful points.

I remember thinking that AI bit off too much . . . it couldn't chew it all . . .

There wasn't solid sense of where they wanted to go with this film.

Kubrick, as other people have mentioned, probably would have made the film more focused on the boy and less about the environment/universe, which was very imaginative but too much to contain in a 2-3 hour ditty.

Bicentennial Man was good? I missed that one! I'll have to see it . . . :D
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: puppytron
2004-03-19 06:11 am (UTC)
yep, i think it was a real lack of direction...maybe i think about this stuff too much.

i just take my sci fi very seriously. :-)
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: sauce1977
2004-03-19 12:13 pm (UTC)
Sci-Fi fans truly understand. :D
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: puppytron
2004-03-19 01:08 pm (UTC)
:-) true true
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)