h_proudfoot

I haven't been compelled to write an IMDB review in over 18 years, but let me say that GLTS is just. that. good. (Also, all my previous reviews are terrible and I disavow them as teenage ineptitude in action; don't let them color your views on my taste level or human worth.)

Anyway, you should watch this show, especially now that it is available to all of us outside of New York City. It's very good -- especially if you like snacks, naps, and little twists. Who doesn't like those things?? If you don't, fine, but there's plenty of other stuff too! Give it a chance, will ya?

The tone of the movie, its awkwardness, and its unique comedic flavor reflect some of the greatest aspects of Ben Stiller's on-screen persona. It's shifty and ungraceful, but in a lovable, embarrassing way. It is an acquired taste. It takes a few viewings to truly appreciate the humor (and possible message) of this film. Ben Stiller was definitely in his element when he helmed The Cable Guy.

Jim Carrey's performance is so good, I get chills sometimes just looking at him. He really creeps the bejesus out of me, which is a good thing. There are some movies that are great simply because they are creepy, because they make you squirm, because they make you a little uncomfortable. This movie (Quills is another one) has endeared itself to me by embracing its creepiness. It has the power to be both serious and ridiculous at the same time, which is a feat quite astonishing.

If there is one thing people should take from this movie, it is that television is damaging to the brain. But we all know that. Which is why the crux of the movie is not the idea of television as a poor babysitter, but on the idea that dark humor and ridiculous behavior can be enjoyable, though not for all.

It takes a certain kind of person to love this movie. You have to be greatly amused by the absurd. One of the greatest scenes takes place in Medieval Times, when Chip reenacts a classic encounter from Star Trek (complete with musical score) as a flabbergasted Steven looks on in horror. Great cameos from Stiller's pals Janeane Garafolo and Andy Dick help to make the Medieval Times segment uproariously funny.

Broderick plays the duped and dumped Steven to perfection, but the real treat is in viewing a "pre-stardom" Jack Black in his supporting role as Steven's best friend. I knew from the first time I saw him that he was going to go places (although his best performance is in High Fidelity, his Rick still holds a special place in my heart).

Some of the funniest parts in the movie are also the hardest to find. I actually laughed the most I ever had when I watched the movie with Closed Captioning while experiencing two very painful ear infections. There's something very special about a movie when it has the power to overcome the agony of an ear infection.

I know a movie has something special when it directly affects the way I live my life. For weeks after my second viewing, I couldn't help but talk in a thuthpithous lithsp. While exercising, I would do a few warm-up sprints to prevent the pulling of a "hammy." Any opponent was then referred to as "The Red Knight" and would subsequently be going "down! Down! Down! Red Knight's going down!" This movie is special to me. It may not be an American classic, or even a Cult Classic, but for my friends, family, and me it will forever be remembered as such.

My viewing enjoyment increases each time I sit down to watch this film. I've even converted a few people who were disappointed in their first viewing when Jim Carrey's Chip barely resembled Ace Ventura when I sat them down to a second viewing and carefully pointed out to them the beauty that is The Cable Guy.

It takes getting used to, but its definitely worth the effort.

A.I. tries to be many things all at once. It succeeds at this, although

it is a hindrance throughout the film, weighing it down into murky

depths of obscurity.

Did I like the movie? Well, yes, indeed I did. Is it a good movie?

Yes, too, it is this. However, is it a movie that everyone must see

and will love? Definitely not. Only a certain kind of person can enjoy

this movie. A person who likes both Spielberg and Kubrick, which

is no easy feat. Both moviemakers are talented visionaries, but

their visions are wildly different.

Spielberg is very introspective, focusing on emotions as the keys

to his stories. Kubrick's approach is more plot-oriented. He sees

his characters as parts of the background, the scenery, the bigger

picture. Spielberg, on the other hand, goes to painstaking lengths

to focus his camera not on the large external picture, but deep

inside the characters inhabiting his story, their very souls for all to

see. He films from the inside-out, while Kubrick does the opposite.

And that's what A.I. is: a movie opposite of itself, a conundrum, a

complete and utter mystery.

But it works. It is brave and austere, but tender and innocent at the

same time. It reaches for many levels, but as it does, it also

reaches many plateaus. It tries for so much, but it has set its

expectations too high. Nonetheless, the film achieves many

things, even if greatness isn't one of them.

The movie is divided into three segments (which I call): `Mommy',

`Gigolo Joe', and `Submerged'. `Mommy' is sentimental Spielberg, pushing emotion and tugging heartstrings to the very

limit. It was touching, to a certain extent, but not everyone will find it

pleasing. Sentimentalists will adore it; mothers will cherish it; men

who are insecure about their sexuality will abhor it (as they abhor

many complex things). The plot focuses mainly on the `mecha,'

David, programmed to love and struggling to fit into a normal

human family, yearning for the love his gives out to be returned to

him by `Mommy'. It is Haley Joel Osment's shining moment. It is

his best work to date (a pretty large statement for an adolescent).

`Gigolo Joe' is Kubrick, although I am not sure to the extent of his

involvement in the production. I have read that he penned the

original script, however credit is not given, and I don't know how

much of his original concept is salvaged by Spielberg in this

production. `Gigolo Joe' screams Kubrick to me, simply through

it's madness, it's chaos, and most importantly it's magnetism.

The main character, besides Osment's David, is a love-making

model mecha, Gigolo Joe, played charmingly and deliciously by

Jude Law. For a robot who was programmed without emotions, he

evokes emotion from those he makes contact with: the women he

pleasures, David, and the audience. Joe, strangely enough, has

characters of human emotion even when he logically shouldn't,

which could be considered a flaw in the film, but how could it be

any other way? The movie places itself in a tight corner by making

artificial human beings with artificial emotions as its lead

characters, because how is a human audience supposed to relate

to such artificiality? To get around this problem, Spielberg and Co.

simply avoid the fact that the emotions, like the intelligence, are

artificial. Mechas are given distinct personalities, and with these

personalities inevitably come emotions, and I accept it, as will

most. This portion of the movie is definitely my favorite. The Flesh

Fair alone is worth the trip to the video rental store, and a cameo

by Chris Rock is one of the highlights of the film (fifteen seconds

out of 2 hours and 26 minutes).

The third and final segment, `Submerged', places David in

Manhattan, his birthplace. This part of the movie could have been a

lot shorter, and the ending could have been a little less sappy, for

my particular tastes. It is too clean, and doesn't seem to fit in with

the rest of the film. Whereas the rest is choppy and chaotic (very

befitting of the subject at hand), the final scenes of the film seem

to come from a fairy tale where happy endings are guaranteed. I

disapprove of the tidiness of the ending, but not of the sentiment

behind it. Spielberg wants to dearly give his hero the one thing in

the world he yearns for, and he has found a way to do that without

being corny or manipulative. That is truly appreciated by the

viewing audience, but the easiness to which the ending comes, to

how David earns his prize does not mesh with the rest of the film.

It is at it's core a heroic quest, and the epiphany that the hero must

encounter by the end of the tale is not evident, which sadly takes

away from the rest of the film.

When the ending is less than perfect, it tarnishes everything that

came before it. Where it should be poignant and thought- provoking, the final scenes of A.I. seem to be instead targeted to a

child who needs everything explained to him. A movie that tackles

a subject as deep and ambiguous as artificial intelligence should

have an ending just as esoteric and cryptic.

Although I might sound disappointed, I am giving this movie a

good review. It is worth seeing, and Spielberg once again creates

a visual, sometimes disturbing, accomplishment. Despite a few

flaws, both minor and major, Artificial Intelligence is still a movie

that imprints unforgettable images into the mind and asks

undeniably important questions. It tries desperately to answer

those questions, but it is in search of those alluding answers that

the film ultimately finds fault. Sometimes the answers are better

left unsaid.