> > > She didn't hate the movie because it was poorly made or had a bad story or a boring plotline.
> >
> > To be fair, it was all of those things.
>
> Was it really poorly made? Seems like technically, it was fantastically made. It was just a terrible story and boring as hell. Well, the first 30 minutes would have made an excellent mini-movie. But the rest was total junk.
>
> -- Dave

I think, with one exception, the individual sections of the movie are well made but they completely don't jive with one another. The first part (aka the good part) is a cold sort of Kubrick-esque thriller. Then the movie completely shifts styles and is a sort of a weird adventure movie. Eventually it settles into... well I don't really know what the last third of the movie is.

I know its defenders will argue the shifting style is befitting the shifting story, and I can get behind that to an extent, but ultimately it feels all stitched together out of various pieces. This makes sense given the flick's genesis as a project that was developed over long periods of time and filmed shortly after its originator died, but at no point does the movie feel cohesive.

And the ending, the final segment in the far future, is total rubbish. The presentation of the advanced robots is so poorly handled many people (including me) left the theater thinking they were aliens. The final scenes are handled with the Spielberg gooey sentimental dial set at 11 with lush colors and sappy music -- which once again is completely wrong given the tone of every other scene in the movie.

Stephen