Skip suggested:
>Dear lad, you should go back and read the Trilogy.  Not only is it an
>amazing piece of work from both a scholarly and  literary perspective,...

Maybe so, but I actually did try to read it once - at least the first book
- one summer when I was healing from a bad foot sprain (which eliminated
climbing, biking, and hiking for a while). I became immensely bored with it
after 50 or so pages and never bothered going back to it.

>But I think one needs to understand the Trilogy in order to
>understand the movie.  One can then argue the relative merits of the
>liberties taken with the story.

Probably, but on a simpler level, the movie just became incredibly bogged
down in expository narrative occasionally punctuated by fairly poor
CGI-laden F/X. And the acting was atrocious.

> >Steven Spielberg still owes me for ET. Plus interest. And penalties.
>Well then, ignore the above. I forgot that TRUE computer wonks have no
>sense of romance.

Oh sure we do! It's just that Spielberg films, with very few exceptions,
invariably drown in a cloying treacle of their insipid sweetness. And his
"view of wonderment through the eyes of a child" bit got pretty old the
first 20 or 30 times we saw it.

A.I. could have been a pretty good film if it had ended on the exceptional
dark note at the end of the second act. But it probably would have failed
test audience focus group screenings. E.T., if done right, would have
involved lots more blood and the death of at least one of the major
characters. Think how much more of a moral dilemma it would have been for
Elliot if ET had slaughtered the Drew Barrymore character at some point.

Everything in excess. Moderation is for monks.
Direct link to my weblog page:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.

To unsubscribe, visit