Movie Review: Artificial Intelligence

Artificial Intelligence

Real Hollywood

Well, it's Tuesday so I went to see a half price movie. There has been a bit of talk on the newspaper about Artificial Intelligence, the new Steve Spielberg flick, so Christa and I went to see what it was all about. The comments that I had read were concerning the movie's suitability for young children.

I can't really say what my thoughts were going into see the movie, but the combination of Spielberg, some sort of collaboration with Kubrick and warnings about unsuitability for children sort of make me think they weren't that bad. Anyway, the film starts off interestingly enough. It begins in a futuristic classroom like setting, where what the movie's framework seems to be set up. A bunch of engineers come up with a plan to make a robot child that is capable of loving. They imply that this has never been done before and will represent a new and possibly revolutionary development. In other words words this will be the most intelligent form of artificial intelligence, one that capable of emotional learning and personality development. They treat the question like any bunch of engineers. The problem is to program emotional love which becomes a technical question. One young lady in the classroom asks an interesting question, but in the end it is a marketing question. And so the engineers go off and solve the problem of making a robot love.

The first act of the movie is quite interesting and we are taken with what seems to be the central theme in the movie. The robot, David, is created and given to a couple who's real son has a terminal illness and has been cryogenically frozen and will remain frozen until he can be cured. Some emotional scenes follow where the human family struggles with whether they can accept David. Soon the real son is miraculously cured and the real son competes with David for the Mother's affection. We are occupied with the idea that if it is possible to create an object that loves us what if anything do we owe to that object. This idea is, however abandoned quickly. The answer is apparent. Though one might become strongly attached to David, when the real son is threatened David is tossed. David filled a need, but is only seen instrumentally as something capable of loving when you need to be loved.

In the second act we hit some really interesting stuff. David, who has been abandoned, tries to become 'real.' That is, he wants to be a real son in order to gain the love of the lady who was his mother, who he was programmed to love. During this act we are asked: what would make David real, something we would consider a person? Throughout, David is drawn by his love for 'his mother' and the belief that the Pinnochio fairy tale is real. So, he searches for a blue fairy to make him real. In typical American style David wanders. He meets some memorable characters and moves off to a dangerous frontier. Oddly enough he heads east, to Manhattan, a ghost town that was flooded when the ice caps melted. In Manhattan David was supposed to be turned into a real boy.

I will not spoil how the ending turns out, it is enough to say that it will spoil itself. It is a typically Hollywood ending. The possibilities questions that the movie starts with never realize themselves. Instead, what begins as a movie that seems to ask hard and interesting questions turns into a teary, emotional, made for Oprah mother - son moment. Even that wouldn't be so bad had the second, and central theme been realized. There is a moment, the climax, when we see a Hegelian/Hobian consciousness dialectic emerging. Unfortunately, it does not realize and David remains a slave to his programing. The third act is really pointless.

Maybe I missed something. Maybe I simply don't buy into the idea that emotional love equals humanity, that love is our one defining trait. I thought self-consciousness had at least something to do with it.

This movie, however had beautiful and haunting images and all that technical stuff, but the story failed. The max this movie can get is 49%. Therefore it gets

2 1/3 stars. ERRATUM

Using the scale recently developed with Mr J.J.E. Imber, Esq this Movie gets: ** (2 Stars)

Blends and Single Malts

Blends and Singles

After singing the praises of blended Scotch, I don't want to seem biased or overly stuck in my ways. So, the other day I picked up a bottle of Single Malt. I had heard that Scotch aged in sherry oak casks was something to try, so I tried it.

First, we should talk about the Single Malt experience. It is very much a different experience than drinking blended whisky. First of all, let's get one thing straight, you cannot compare blends to singles. I won't say that it's like comparing apples and oranges, really, its more like comparing a night out with the boys and a night out with one of the boys. You like going out with the gang because their is a certain comfort and familiarity, but when you and a buddy go out there is a certain connection - a unique experience that cannot exist when you are out with the gang. The difference between singles and blends is comparable, in my humble opinion.

The Single Malt

The Single Malt has that unique edge to it. It has personality and qualities that you don't see everyday. You probably don't want to drink Single Malt everyday. As far as I'm concerned, the great strength of a blend is that you can drink it everyday. It is a something that you won't get tired of, it's something you can rely on. A Single Malt, however, has to fit the occasion. You can't put it in the decanter, like you can a blend, no, the individuality of a Single Malt is ruined if it leaves the bottle. Single Malts must be kept distinct, in their bottles, as part of a collection. The true Single Malt lover keeps the tube or cylinder that the bottle comes in.

Single Malts, by definition are at least three years old, forty per cent alcohol, from malted barley, aged in oak and distilled in a pot still. Most importantly they must have been produced from one single distillery. Naturally there are many varieties of Single Malts out there. The peculiarities of the region, land, water and distillery all help to fashion the unique taste of each malt. Hopefully, as my collection expands, you will see many of the Single Malt varieties reviewed here.

It is hard to know just how the reviews will go. There are many fine Whiskys out there and many of the characteristics are unique and special making it hard to judge deficiencies and qualities. Further, Single Malts are harder to sample than wines. In order to sample the singles you have to buy relatively expensive bottles of Scotch, and I'm cheap! Nonetheless, in the interest of saving you from the scourge of poor taste, I am determined to let the world know what is good and what is bad so that you don't have to find out on your own. I will rate and I will judge so that you will know what is Chris' Choice.

Scotch: Glenmorangie Sherry Wood Finish

So, this is what I think of Glenmorangie Sherry Wood Finish:

When you get a hold of the aromas of this scotch you are sent back to those carefree meadows of your childhood, where the sun is shining, the flowers are out and the woods are not to far away. The sweet grassy aromas are balanced nicely by floral and wood-nut scents. A delightful nose leads to a creamy mellow, but strong mouth. The flavours are strong and nutty with a bit of oil. The aftertaste lingers for some time. This is a 'classy' drink. The dark colour and lingering flavour will no doubt help you fool someone into thinking you have taste. So long as you follow my advice and drink this whisky you won't need taste, you'll have me to guide you!!

Stats:

Name:Glenmorangie Sherry Wood Finish
Pronounced: Glen m-orange-ee (sounds like the fruit orange)
Region: Northern Highland
Age: Not indicated on the bottle or tube, but is part of the line of 12 year old Glenmorangie products
Alcohol: 43%

Website: www.glenmorangie.com

Rating:

On the official Chris' Choice rating scale, Glenmorangie Sherry Wood Finish rates a:

+2

Movie Review: Requiem for a Dream

Another disturbing movie about drugs. Look folks, I don't get drugs and I don't normally get movies about them. But, I liked this movie, though it could have been better.

The movie follows two parallel plots, with parallel tragedies. The similarities are a matter of form. Plot A deals with an elderly lady whose husband, I presume, is dead. She lives alone and ritualistically drags a lawnchair out to sit on the sidewalk with a gang of other old ladies. Her son, the main character in Plot B, is a junky although she loves him dearly. The majority of her life is spent in front of the tele. She watches an annoying game show. Then one day she is selected to attend the game show. She is filled with ideals and visions, all of the sudden she is the most popular lady in her group and she wants to wear her favourite red dress. Of course, she can no longer fit into her red dress. She goes on a diet, then unsatisfied by the diet she visits a little man in a white coat. And the descent begins.

Plot B is about the son, who we know from the onset is a junky. His life is spent pawning his mothers television for drugs. His mother then, without fail, buys back the television and the ritual continues. The son and his friend 'Tyrone' get the idea that they could start selling the junk in order to fund their habit. They are quite successful, so successful that the son buys mom a big screen tele. The third character in this plot is perhaps the most tragic. The son's girlfriend, a junky from a well off family, seems to really love the son. The two of them plot of one day running a business. They want to sell the clothes the girlfriend designs and will make. All seems to be going well. Then, all of the sudden, the supply runs dry. And the descent begins.

What is remarkable about this movie is the movement and the photography. The whole movie moves according to the seasons. Summer, described above, is full of dreams and possibility. Fall begins the descent to winter. This, of course, is not all that thrilling. Beneath the macro movement of the seasons is the micro movement of the characters. Both plots go round and round in parallel in the search for the next fix. Each sequence begins with a disturbing set of close up pictures of drug-doing.

What really got me, was the lingering of the dream and the haunting images that capture the idea of the dream. The movie has pictures of great beauty made more beautiful by the images of great horror that capture the descent and ultimately the underworld that the characters descend to.

I have to comment on the characters themselves. They were, for a movie about drugs, quite human. It was their dreams and aspirations that made them so. The drugs were what made them subhuman. The constant reminder of the dreams helped to keep us aware that these were people and maintains the sympathy needed for us to keep watching the movie through the horrible winter season.

This is not a meditation on a theme, or the exploration of an idea. Requiem for a Dream really is a requiem. It is a tragedy in the grand sense. It sings out to the soul of the lost dreams and ideals that have died because of human stupidity. There is a certain gruesome naturalism that tries to tell the dreams to rest in peace, to forgive these humans, they know not what they do. The movement of nature only reinforces this idea.

Requiem for a Dream cannot really be a tragedy in the grand sense, I lied. Don't get me wrong it is tragic and tries to be a tragedy. The problem is that there cannot be a character like Antigone, Oedipus or Hamlet. The junkies are not being tossed around by nature. My conservative right wing sensibilities tell me that doing drugs is a choice. Drugs is not a part of the tragic nature of man. It is part of the stupid nature of some stupid people. My idealism tells me that some people can reach their dreams, in fact that many people can - even people that have done drugs. Dreams in this movie make junkies human, it is the junk that stops the junkies from being human. Sub-humans, to carry on the metaphor, cannot be the subject of proper tragedy. Tragedy must appeal to our universal human nature. Look to the Greeks or to Shakespeare for tragedy, not Hollywood.

This is a good movie, but I am bound by my rating scale. The movie passes, but the film suffers from the deficiency that I've just mentioned. The movement and photography ought to give this film four stars, but I cannot in could conscience ignore the official Chris' Choice scale. Requiem for a Dream has surpassed my expectations of a movie about drugs, but it has problems. It does not meet my expectations of a tragedy. The problems weaken the pass,

On the official Chris' Choice scale Requiem for a Dream gets two stars.

**

Movie Review: Magnolia

Huh?!?

I saw this movie a long time ago. I've made a lot of judgments about it and commented on it ad hoc for some time. The other day I put it on and really tried to figure it out.

Most movie reviews that I have read try to give a summary of the plot and characters. In the case of Magnolia I do not think that this is appropriate. This is a very different movie. Really, it is quite smart in some ways. The elaborate interconnections set out in the preface tell us that there is an elaborate force that brings people together. The plot and characters in the movie are not immune from the cosmic interconnection. Any real elaboration of the plot would ruin the fun of trying to figure out just what the heck is going on.

Really, Magnolia is all about trying to figure out what the hell is going on, it is what makes it a fun movie. It also makes writing a review quite difficult. There is so many complicated things going on, and it tries to appear as a deep film that anyone commenting on the movie does not want to appear to be an idiot. Everyone says, "I loved it, what a great film" but my hunch is those people do not want to look foolish.

There are some really cool things that really got me going. For instance, there is a scene reminiscent of the end of 2001: A Space Odyssey where Earl Partridge (the dying old man) is lying in bed, then the theme from 2001 starts up (Thus Spake Zarathrustra) and the scene changes to Frank T.J. Mackie (Tom Cruise the sex therapist) and one of his speeches about inner strength and dominating what is around you, linking the 2001 theme to the meaning of the original song as an interpretation of Nietzche's poem about the 'superman'. I thought that was cool. Things of this nature help to get us to believe that this is a deep and meaningful film.

The characters are all in some sort of crisis. The narrator tells us "things don't just happen" and "this is not just a coincidence." Some of the characters speak in verse. There is a young kid who says that he will tell us what it all means. He tells us in rap. The old quiz kid (Donnie) tells us that "it is ok to confuse children with angels." Of course the children in the film end up appearing to be more wise than all of the adults. Of course, since everything is connected, the speeches of the children are of cosmic significance. The children probably are angels.

OK, the whole thing is terribly confusing. There are a few things that one ought to know and will help to make sense of the movie.

• The music is very important
• The children ARE smarter than the adults and are keys to unlocking the plot - they are angels
• The weather forecasts are messages from God
• The cocaine addict is the main character.

>> SPOILER WARNING

So Chris, what does it all mean? Maybe I'm too stupid to understand the whole thing, but there is no deep meaning in the traditional sense. The movie does not ask any questions like other movies (see my review of The Virgin Suicides). It does not explain some fact of life. Instead, the movie is insulting. Magnolia is a polemic. It tells us what to do. "But if you refuse to let them go. Behold, I will smite all your territory with frogs." (Exodus 8:2) The movie is about the past and its hold on our consciousness. Just about every character in the film says "we may be through with the past, but the past aint through with us."

The movie isn't reflecting about forgiveness as the cop would have us believe. He says "sometimes people need to be forgiven, sometimes people need to go to jail." The movie says: you must forgive lest you be plagued by bad things! My objection is that a movie should reflect and ask questions. They ought to be reflective. Although it was fun to try and sort out everything that goes on, to figure out the the intersections and complications the movie is unsatisfactory. There is a deep paternalism, a warning about forgiveness from someone who is supposed to know more than us. The movie makes you dig and forces you to sift through a lot unnecessary complications. It tricks you into thinking you are smart and that the movie is deep. It is not deep. It is simple pedantic moralizing with flashy marketing. This is not new. This is not innovation. It is insulting. I don't go to the movies for a lecture. I can think on my own thank you very much.

<< END SPOILER

This movie gets two stars on the official Chris' Choice rating scale.

**