Your Dream Movie

I guess I would have loved to see Stanley Kubrick's Napoleon film that never got made.

Orson Welles' cut of The Magnificent Ambersons.

Jodorowski's version of Dune.

Shunji Iwai directing my screenplay. (Perhaps one day. . .)

my top choice for that category--Gilliam's now-famous failure, "Man of La Mancha", and his long in the works adaptation of the book "Good Omens" (which is the best book my girlfriend ever forced me to read).

As for the original topic, maybe gaspar noe directing georges batailles' "story of the eye", anybody but cronenberg remaking burrough's "naked lunch" (don't get me wrong, i liked cronenberg's film, but it was completely different from the book--maybe passolini coming back from the dead, fresh off of "salo"?)

all right, you're going to have to put up a pretty damn good argument to have this one fly....

i would LOVE for someone to do a movie about Cortez. a really violent one.

this is actually pretty hillarious--the film is fascinating for the sheer reason that Spielberg failed, but actually came close (arguably) to "making something actually challenging"! it's like he's some kind of special ed student who we're cheering for getting a C+.

I'll take a predictably amazing Kubrick masterpiece any day over Spielberg's half-assed forays into cinema meant for people over the age of eight.

Having the AI-kid played by cute-helpless-loveable-adorable Hayley Joel Osmant (or whatever his name is) was a phenomenal mistake. Where was the darkness of the film? The sin-city place was about as dirty as Disneyland. Where was the drama? Where was the tension? Where was I meant to start thinking? What the fuck was that whole last section of the boy with the mom? Seriously -- what does that REALLY tell us about the film, the moral/ethical questions raised, etc?

Spielberg's biggest mistake was making the mom character to perfect. Too mom-like. I've mentioned this elsewhere, but in the original treatment, the mom is a mess. Depressed, alcoholic. The AI-kid attempts to win affection by bringing her drinks. NOT BY BEING SO FUCKING ADORABLE TO STARE AT!!!

Both AI and Minority Report have as their sources tales of a highly ethical nature. SS is too much of an emotional cripple (or retard, if you prefer) to be able to handle that, so he has to resort to his old standby -- cute kid in trouble.

See -- my problem is that this was film meant to be made by somebody else. Unfortunately, he died. However, there is enough material around to know what kind of story Kubrick intended. Read his treatment -- it's floating around the web -- you should be able to find it.

Hearing Stevie spout nonsense like "this is what Stanley would have wanted" makes me sick.

So, you decry Spielberg for making everything too fucking emotionally teutonic, but then slam him for changing an aspect of Kubrick's original scenario that seems pretty by-the-numbers nihilistic and obvious into something far more vague and open to interpretation? Make no mistake, I'm a much bigger Kubrick fan than I am a Spielberg fan, but I don't think Kubrick was impervious to criticism and his tendancies towards moral shallowness (A Clockwork Orange) truly rival Spielberg's.

I'm seriously too through with bothering to argue with people who can't get past Spielberg's fascination with familial themes as it this is a topic unworthy of consideration in the world of art. Sure, a good portion of his vision is derived straight from Normal Rockwell, but that doesn't discount his willingness to sometimes go to more difficult areas (E.T. gets much of its oomph from its portrait of fissuring, about-to-crack households, imho.)

And Goddammit, Kubrick gave the movie to Spielberg! That argument is toast.

Look, the original story deals with elements that Spielberg is familiar with -- family, love, what it means to be a mother, motherly love, etc. I understand why he 'might' be a good choice. However, by turning the obvious factor up to 11, he ruined any chance of the film truly engaging us in the fucked-up dilemma(s) that the story addresses.

I understand that A.I.'s extreme tonal dissonance isn't ever going to allow it to be a widely accepted film. That's aiight, though. I sort of dig controversial, not easily unpackable films the best. (Hello, late Kubrick!)

If only AI was such a film. Natch.

Interesting comment on A Clockwork Orange. I must admit I've not thought of the film in such detail for many years. I really need to go back and think of it in contrast to his later works. Thanks for that.

I find Haley Joel Osment utterly creepy in all of his films. That horrible pudgy little face with those cold, wise eyes like hes an old man in a little boys body. The unnatural range of expressions - all variants on fear and misery. He never convincingly plays happy, the grumpy inhuman little bastard. He definitely is not lovable, cute or adorable. Any audience sympathy is a knee-jerk automatic reaction - oh, look, a little boy in peril. The bear is more lovable than he is in A.I., but again, creepy as hell....

Which reminds me -- the whole Pinocchio aspect to the film REALLY got on my nerves.

I wish there was a definitive collection of the pre-production art Cunningham and others did for the film under Kubrick's guidance. As it is, I find AI deeply flawed and obviously in service to two masters, but I don't hate it nearly as much as some people do. The only thing that really rubs me the wrong way is Robin Williams' cameo. And Kubrick's version of the story ends similarly to Speilberg's, although with darker overtones.

There was a similar article in the Guardian (UK) about 2 weeks ago. Seems that Schrader was originally hired to write and direct. People who read the screenplay and saw what he filmed claimed it was an intelligent, thought provoking film dealing with a crisis of faith (one of Schrader's favorite themes) that probably would have been quite a good film. Scary, in a more psychological way. However, the studio wanted blood and gore so they bring in a no-talent like Harlin.

Did the Times say that the Schrader film would be released?

On a similar note, I'd love to see William Peter Blatty's cut of Exorcist III.

The Guardian made it seem like the Schrader film was going to be locked away. Can't believe they're going for a cheap special effects pic.

Timothy Carey! he was great.

WHat about Orson Welles BATMAN.

God, yes! If he had made it right after Citizen Kane, or even Magnificent Ambersons. Joe Cotten as Alfred? Welles as the villain (Penguin?) -- I couldn't see him as Batman/Bruce Wayne. Maybe Tyrone Power before he was known for his Zorro? The mind boggles...