Cool News
A mixed bag of AI Reviews from around the world...Now with Updates
SPOILER ALERT !!
Father Geek here with a big bag of reviews of AI. These are varied... some like it... some hate it... some are indifferent... check them all out, then decide how much you want to pay for that first screening. Keep in mind these people more than likely saw it FREE...
Father Geek returning to say that MORE reviews have been added at the bottom of this post... Including one that is a DIFFERENT (?) CUT OF THE FILM... Check them all out... But first here's a new one from Hercules The Strong...
1. "AI" was more fun to look at than "Phantom Menace,"
which is saying something. The production designers
get a big A-plus-plus. The robots all looked amazing,
and the visual homages to Kubrick were terrific fun.
2. The first, domestic segment, though flawed, was by
far the movie's strongest. I ultimately felt more
sorry for myself than for David after Monica ditched
her towheaded robolad.
3. David's "brothers" (Martin and Teddy) were the
film's best characters. Teddy is the anti-Jar-Jar; I
could not get enough of the little bastard.
4. Why did David drag Martin underwater? What kind of
half-assed inventor is Prof. Hobby?
5. I did not give two shits about Gigolo Joe, and his
many bells and whistles did little to disguise his
essential blandness.
6. Brendan Gleeson's moon-craft makes a great
entrance, but what other use is it?
7. The Flesh Fair sequence is poorly-devised, and
dull. People of the future will hire sitters and pay
for parking to see acid poured on one mecha after
another? Wouldn't this have been a good place to
stage the best episode of "Battlebots" ever?
8. I thought Chris Rock's vocal cameo a welcome
respite.
9. To paraphrase Woody Allen, if Stanley Kubrick ever
saw the Dr. Know scene, he would never stop throwing
up.
10. It was great seeing William Hurt as Hobby.
11. Spielberg already did the toppling ferris wheel in
1941. He must love toppling ferris wheels more than
Blake Edwards loves fully-clothed people falling in
swimming pools.
12. The human-free finale cribs from, and does
disservice to, the finales of both "Close Encounters"
and "2001."
13. Though infinitely less engaging visually,
tonight's "Buffy" rerun with April the robot (a robot
programmed to love!) boasted markedly stronger
characterization, pacing and emotional resonance.
Hercules the Strong
Here's Sailor Poon's 5 second A.I. review...
The beginning is rushed, the ending drags, and c.g.i. steals it's integrity.
High hopes dashed.
Sailor Poon
BEWARE, from here on many of these reviews contain SPOILERS...
Now here's a female perspective...
Have you seen AI yet? I caught a screening last night. I was all set
to fall in love with a wonderful movie. Unfortunately, I went to AI instead
of
something else. The audience laughed in all the wrong places. In the
poignant
ending scene, a cell phone rang and no one cared. They actually enjoyed the
break from the bad movie. No one cared about David, the lonely boy.
I
started
looking at my watch after about 45 minutes. My companions were shocked to
look at theirs and realize they still had over an hour of movie left. David
spends
2,000 years under water. We thought we had spent 2,000 years in our seats.
Haley Joel Osmant does a wonderful job of non-emoting.
Sets looked
cool.
Cyber creatures in the end were cool. But, William Hurt looks awful. The
"Geppetto"
sleeveless jacket in Manhattan is too much. Plus, if the society is so far
advanced
they can cryogenically freeze the sick child, create love Meca's and
lifelike children
Meca that can love back, can't they find a better alternative to wearing
ties?
Mary Mary Quite ContraryThen we have this one...
Palpatine here. Well, I managed to get myself into the press screening of AI in Houston on Monday night, with the help our local film geek posse (w00t!). Anyway it was a lot of fun, and here's a moderately spoiler filled review.
Let's get this out of the way first: AI is not primarily a film of ideas. Those entering
the theater looking for an intellectual rumination on the ramifications of Artificial
Intelligence will be sorely dissappointed. It IS, however, what most records indicate
Kubrick wanted it to be: a fairy tale. An adult fairy tale; one that is emotionally mature,
touched with atmosphere, and not afraid to end on a somewhat bittersweet note. For all the
talk of ideas, cynicism, or "themes of dehumanization" in Kubrick's films, his best work, to
me, has always boiled down to an emotional journey. An oddyssey in which we are
immersed in the experiences and psyche of a character for 2 hours and emerge with a
series of questions on the topics raised. In this sense, AI is a true Kubrick film. We follow
David on a simple quest to fulfill the directives of his programming: David must love, and
be loved by the parent he imprints on. This is the sole purpose for which he was
created, and the singular goal for which he lives his life. It is also the primary thematic
concern of the film's story: the desire to love and be loved, and the emotional and ethical
pathos that springs thus forth.
*Begin spoiler*
This basic moral premise is mapped out in the film's first scene, in which we are
introduced to Professor Hobby (William Hurt), a scientist in the field of robotics.
"Mecha", we learn, are commonplace in our new society. After the melting of the polar ice
caps the earth's population took a sharp loss, and mecha were concieved and built to
maintain production levels in the face of worker shortage. Professor Hobby has a different
vision, and one which is seen in greater detail as the film progresses. Until this point in
history, mecha had been designed for practical purposes: worker drones, sex bots, nannies,
children's toys; they were machines. Hobby proposes what amounts to nothing less than the
creation of a living being. A robot child that is capable of emotion, which can be provided
to parents who cannot have, or have lost their children. Under his plan, the robot child
would be programmed to love its human owners, thus solving one of the great emotional
difficulties of parenthood. The question raised at that point by one onlooker is this: If the
child is programmed to love, what happens if its human parents don't love it back? Is it
abuse to create a being which is forced to devote itself with a single emotion to a being
that has several? Professor Hobby provides a rather provocative answer and then we
proceed to meet his men's prototype child: David.
The story is divided into three acts, and the first begins here. David has been
assigned to the home of Henry (Sam Robards) and Monica Swinton (Frances O'Connor),
two grieving parents whose son lies in a coma after an accident. When they first meet,
Henry is presenting him to Monica as a kind of distraction, like a pet, or a toy. But David
doesn't make a very good pet. He has an overwhelming desire to be loved and noticed by
his owners which, coupled with a strange curiosity and a kind of newborn level naievete,
results in getting him into trouble. Things are further complicated when the Swinton's real
son Martin (A name many of you should recognize if you played the AI Game) awakes
from his coma, and returns to his family. David now has a flesh and blood rival.
It's strange just how creepy and unsettling many of these early scenes are. We, as
the audience, are adjusting to David's presense along with the Swintons, but at the same
time, David is adjusting to us. Sometimes this results in a laugh, sometimes in a chill, and
sometimes we can't help but feel sympathy for David's situation. Everyone knows the plan
isn't working, and there is a kind of foreboding dread that carries this segment of the
film to its close, when David is abandoned on the side of the road, near the cybertronix
building.
At this point, I will stop the plot summary as it is here where David begins his
quest. All you need to know is that he's read Pinnochio and believes that if he can find the
Blue Fairy, he can become a real boy and live again with the Swintons; basic fairy tale
material.
I mentioned Kubrick at the start of this review, in order to bury him. Ol' Stanely's
name is gonna come up a lot when talking about this movie (and rightly so, as he's
mentioned extensively by Spielberg in the credits), but we shouldn't lose sight that this is
Spielberg's film. I've been critical of a lot of Spielberg's choices in the last 10-15 years,
and a lot of his movies as well, but I will never again doubt his technical abilities. From
opening to close, frame to frame, this film is mezmorizing. It kept my interest for the entire
2 and a half hour running time, even though I had drank way too much coke before the
screening began and BADLY needed a restroom break; I simply could not leave. This is
definitely as restrained and cinematic a movie as I think we'll ever see him make. It's quiet,
and slow moving, but there were still several moments where I was dazzled by what I saw
on-screen. He's created here a living world, imaginative but real, like Blade Runner but
with slightly less detail.
Emotionally, it's the most mature movie he's ever made. Usually I hate it when
critics use the word mature. It's most often used to describe a director who's toned down
their usual sensibilities in favor of commercial or popular success. Here, it's the exact
opposite. It's the first film of Spielberg's I've seen with grown up characters, and grown up
on-screen complexities that are presented in a way where he's not pandering, or calling
attention to the fact that he's trying to be "serious." The characters, and the movie simply
are.
Frances O' Connor gives an absolutely brilliant performance. She's the most human,
compassionate character in the story, and the fact that the first act works so well is largely
due to her efforts. We see in her face a conflict that is far greater than what's written in
dialogue. As Monica, she is at first horrified, when her husband introduces her to David.
The thought of replacing their son at all is repulsive to her, let alone with a robot. Soon
however, the tables begin to turn. Monica begins to see David as human, even starts to care
for him, while Henry grows increasingly creeped out, and believes David is a threat to
Martin, and her. There's a tremendous weight on the poor woman's shoulder; she knows
that if she rejects David, and returns him to the Cybertronix plant, they'll destroy him, but
she also realizes that there is no concieveable way that he can continue to live in the house
with her husband and flesh and blood son. She is the only person, in a long line of sinful
parents presented in the movie, who feels any kind of responsibility for David, or relates
to him as an emotional being.
William Hurt's Hobby pretends to care about David, but spends most of the time
giving rambling speeches about dreams. There are some rather chilling revelations about
his personal motives and actions that occur late in the second act, in one of the movie's
most powerful sequences. Jude Law is an absolute show stealer as Gigolo Joe. He fades
more into the background in each progressive scene, but his entrance is classic. There are a
few moments of dialogue here where Joe could actually give Frank TJ Mackey a run for
his money. The audience ate it up, cheering and laughing loudly. My friend and I were
squirming in our seats in shock: "SPIELBERG WROTE THAT?!"
The script is excessively wordy in a few parts, and clunky near the opening, but it
gathers strength and confidence as it goes along. Since a good amount of the story is visual,
perhaps the best compliment I can give is to say it didn't get in the way. I don't normally
like to comment on fx work in movies, but it'd be a crime not to mention the astonishing
work done on this film. From the makeup job for Jude Law, to the computerized mecha, it
was hard to tell what was CG and what wasn't. My jaw hit the floor the first time they
powered up David's mechanized Teddy Bear. More than any other movie I've seen,
"Teddy" becomes a living, breathing character, and not just a piece of CG. His movements
are absolutely gorgeous technically, and they have real personality otherwise. Lord of the
Rings has got a hard act to follow.
I could cover the film's technical joys all day, but the truly difficult question in
watching this film (and in reviewing it) is the same one Moriarty, and many many others,
have asked: does it work? I'm not sure. As a personal journey in the mind of a character
who has only one desire in life, but can't achieve it, this is a haunting, and powerful film.
There are many ways we could debate the pros and cons of the issues raised, but it chooses
to personalize those issues, and David's story becomes the story for all AI's: past, present,
and future.
On another level this is a story about parenting. I talked to Rav, Vegas, and
Nordling after the showing, and Nordling said he could sum up the film's moral in three
words "love your kids." The troubles that David goes through, and the troubles of the
Swinton family, are all related in some way to issues of parental responsibility. Most of
the humans presented here are grieving parents, and with the exception of Monica, they are
all looking for a quick fix. They want to reclaim the love of their child in an everlasting,
never-changing state, a "freeze frame" to use Professor Hobby's exact words. But for
David to be able to give love, he has to have consciousness, and for him to have
consciousness places a burden of responsibility on the humans, that most of them seek to
evade. Yes, he loves, but he also wants to recieve it. He wants attention, and to feel
important, just like a normal child. On this level, AI is also a tremendous success.
Where it seems to fall short however is towards the end. As I mentioned earlier,
this is a fairy tale. As a fairy tale, it wants to take us to a certain place emotionally and
thematically, but plot-wise, there were many maaaany contrivances forced on the story to
get it where it needs to go. The end note is an honest one emotionally, but it's too somber
to truly be inspiring. There is also a moment in the finale, where a character
gives a speech about human beings, dreams, and consciousness, that seems to want to be a
summation; a broad sweeping statement about humanity. I don't think it's inappropriate, and
it's certainly not bluntly forced in like the ending of Saving Private Ryan, but at the
same time it is unclear what this message means, or how it works into the story. The movie
builds beautifully toward an epiphany that doesn't ever seem to come.
We are entering into an exciting time for Science Fiction and Fantasy. After putting
up with a decade and a half of tongue in cheek comedies, TV show remakes, and dumb
excuses to make pop culture references, finally we are seeing self contained stories, and
new worlds on-screen.
AI is a fine film. It's left me with many questions about it's overall
artistic success, but it's definitely one of the best sci-fi films to hit the screen in a long long
time. I'm hoping that repeat viewings will clear the cobwebs for me. I brought a lot of
baggage into this screening, and now that I've seen the movie once and know where it's
going, I'm hoping that if I see it again I'll be witnessing a complete work.
Stayin Geeky,
Palpatine
Father Geek back with another one...
I love the internet and what it has done for movies. I love how it has become a new facet in filmmaking and the way simple movie-goers like us can now direct a movie back into the re-write stage. I love how I no longer need to trust Ebert and “fake” critics to inform me on how to spend my eight bucks but geeks like me who think, act, and talk like me. And I love how I know more about a yet-to-be-released movie than ever before. Or not, if I prefer to go into a theatre unscathed.
Such was the path I took along the A.I. journey. I decided that on this film, from day one, it was time to know nothing. And it was a commitment that almost drove me crazy.
I kept away from any news or spy reports, all reviews, and ran screaming out of the room when an AI TV spot came on. I knew a few things: Law was a gigolo, Osment was in it, and Spielberg had all his boys backing him again. From Winston to Rydstrom, from Kaminski to Kennedy, Spielberg (and Kubrick) were going to achieve something special and I wanted so much to know what was going to happen. I wanted to love this movie.
I just got back from seeing AI and I am so pissed I don't know what to do. I'm just going to eat nachos and keep typing.
I’m pissed for a lot of reasons. I’m pissed at Pearl Harbor, for one. I'm pissed because Bruckheimer went about Hollywood months before Memorial Day weekend blabbing to the world about how amazing his film was going to be and how no one had ever seen anything like it before. A few months pass and now blowing a big movie is known as “pulling a Pearl Harbor”. Then I read how Joe Johnston is not going to test JP3 because Spielberg is his producer and is so much on top of the game that he deems a test-audience unnecessary. So I speculate that if Spielberg knows what he is doing with JP3 then he must be very on top of AI as director. And since AI was shrouded in secrecy and no producers ran about singing its praises I speculated that it must be something special and very worthy of my time.
I’ll admit now that I was wrong.
I’m pissed because I feel like Spielberg sold-out by throwing in Chris and Kid Rock into a film that in no way harkens for their talents.
I’m pissed because the effects are brilliant through most of the film and then collapse at the end. I’m pissed because the story is brilliant through most of the film and then collapses at the end. I’m pissed because the film is brilliant, uh, through most of the film and then collapses at the end? What was with that ending?
AI begins with an interesting take, especially in the current wake of cloning issues and other such scientific advancements: if we could create a Mecha (mechanized human being) to love, could it be possible for an organic human being to love it in return?…..an interesting moral issue.
We then see heartwarming scenes as a husband and wife attempt to bond and find common ground with their Mecha child. One scene in particular, reminiscent of Jaws, had Osment mimicking his parents’ actions at the dinner table. Frances O’Connor, fantastic as a grieving and confused “mother”, always tries to be in control but never quite is.
But then the film begins to stray from an interesting moral tug-of-war to a futuristic fairy-tale. This is fine, but the audience never has the chance to catch up. Each scene fades out and another begins, like another chapter has been completed until we are suddenly introduced to a brilliant Jude Law halfway through the film. He is great but seems to stand out of the way of Osment’s fabulous performance.
And then that ending…
The film is a half hour too long and just when you think it’s about over another chapter begins. There is the Home Chapter, the “Flesh Fair” Chapter, the Coruscant-like Manhattan Chapter, the End, then the sequel itself. And its here that all of what AI is trying to be dissipates.
In the end, the writing, cinematography, effects, and acting are all sustained by Williams’ ongoing score that, here, attempts to squeeze out every drop of emotion. And it didn't help that the rest of the theatre was laughing.
When the film was over, I heard three people’s unwanted musings of the film before the producers had even been credited. One screamed. “HOLLYWOOD BULLLLLLSHIT!” another ditz chuckled ignorantly, “Spielberg sucks,” and another said, “I felt like I was the one who had been asleep for 2000 years.”
AI is going to fall hard this summer. Not as hard as Pearl Harbor has, mind you, but it will make a splat-like sound. It’s going to fall hard because it never knows what kind of film it’s supposed to be and never sticks to just one idea. Its once-guarded plot jumps around from one issue to the next and ends like something out of Men In Black meets The Arrival meets Mission to Mars meets a Folgers’s Coffee commercial. I only hope that when Spielberg tackles Minority Report, another futuristic film, he has better luck.
People, I am one of the biggest Spielberg fans out there but I don't think it sacrilege if I tell you to save your money and rent this sucka.
-Bimbo Baggins
email me at: Bimbo_Baggins@aintitcoolmail.comAnnnnnnnd here we go again....
I received tickets to go see a screening of A.I. ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE tonight at the Harkins Luxury 14 in Scottsdale, AZ. I've been following the reviews of A.I. on your site for a while now, so I don't know if you necessarily need or want another A.I. review.
Whatever the case, the audience was decidedly older than I expected. My friend nabbed tickets at ASU earlier in the day, so I expected a larger university crowd. Not so. I'd say the median age was in the late-40/early-50s range. The theater was packed to the gills, and we all suffered a thoroughly embarassing and unprepared trivia contest from some local radio stations at the beginning. This is precisely why I don't listen to the radio.
A.I. quickly washed away any thoughts of the entire affair.
In my opinion, there is more ingenuity, thought, and spectacle going on in A.I. than any of your TOMB RAIDERS, MUMMY RETURNS, et al. Like many of Kubrick's own films, this is a film that will gain reverence through time. This is not to say the film is flawless, but it's a fascinating commentary on humanity in the age of mechanical reproduction, as well as a triumphant marriage of effects wizardry and human actors.
After leaving the theater, my friend's first reaction was the obvious one: "Spielberg fucked it up. He fucked it up, man." I think this will be one of two prime fallacies committed by the average filmgoer: comparing it to Kubrick. Kubrick's a grand director, but even his films are wildly uneven (i.e. the second half of FULL METAL JACKET versus the first). This is not a Stanley Kubrick film, nor is it a marriage of Kubrickian vision with Spielberg -- it's a Steven Spielberg film. There are hints and ghosts of Kubrick throughout, but the late director is not a guiding force in the film. You'll find a tracking shot here or a long pull-away there, but no long corridor set pieces or obviously bizarre angles to speak of.
Sure, the film takes a saccharin turn in the final stretch, but it's a necessary one Spielberg doesn't take the obvious road at the end.
The other fallacy that weekend filmgoers will commit is bringing their children to this film. There were several kids seated near me it's disturbing to see android faces melted off with burning oil or bodies chain-sawed in half), no scene will trouble children more than David's mother abandoning him in the woods.
To echo some of the sentiments on your site lately, some of the film does indeed seem "off." It consistently fails to reach the emotional plateaus it thinks it's reaching -- most notably in the relationship between David and Gigolo Joe. Jude Law and Osment are fantastic, but their 'friendship' comes across as (pun intended) mechanical and hollow. Joe's big farewell scene is very underwhelming, if not altogether silly.
Surprisingly, the effects are fantastic without distracting from the story. Several scenes spring to mind: the opening scene where a female "mecha's" face opens to reveal the circuitry beneath; half-assembled androids scavenging for pieces in a junkheap consisting entirely of metallic body parts; David's underwater search for The Blue Fairy that takes him through the ruins of Coney Island. These scenes are staggering in their photorealism, yet somehow understated and quiet. You simply believe what you're seeing, much in the same way you forgot that the T-Rex bearing down on Goldblum & co. wasn't real.
While the film itself is a bit emotionally disjointed, Spielberg effectively fractures the "Pinocchio" story, rewiring it into a hybrid territory owned and explored by the likes of Donna Haraway and William Gibson. It is a film consisting of material pieces and moments, assembled and reconstituted into the shape of a fairy tale. In a summer movie season populated with shallowness and artifice, A.I. is absolutely the most genuine of them all.
Call me "Lot 49er"
Then there's this one from Alexander Panic...
It's Pinocchio, on acid and CGI. I don't want to give away more than
that, because, unlike most pre-packaged Hollywood blockbusters, A. I.
has some big surprises in store, even for the most jaded movie patron.
Oh, and I should probably put your disparaging mind at ease by
mentioning that it is NOTHING like Bicentennial Man.
So, how is it? (Get to the point, already.)
Ever seen one of those Conan O'Brien skits, the ones where he takes
two celebrity couples, and through the magic of computer, shows them
what their child would look like, if they chose to breed? Since first
hearing that Steven Spielberg was taking over Stanley Kubrick's film,
A. I., after Kubrick kicked the celluloid bucket, I thought the film
would be about as cute as one of those digital-mongoloid freak infants
Conan shows weekly on his show. To my surprise, Spielberg took
Kubrick's vision, twisted in some of his own ideas, and created an
amalgam of a movie that should satisfy the most discriminating of
tastes.
This isn't just one film that you're seeing. This isn't just one director,
or one directorial style being displayed in front of your starving eyes.
Although Spielberg gets most of the credit (Kubrick is relegated to
"concept"), this is obviously more Stanley's film than it is Steven's.
Sure, it moves at a near breakneck pace that Stanley wouldn't hear of,
during his lifetime, but Steven slows things down just enough to remind
you that this isn't really his baby, after-all. This is Kubrick's movie;
Spielberg is merely bringing it to the big screen. There are the
trademark Spielberg moments scattered throughout; but instead of
wrecking the film that Kubrick would have made, they actually
accentuate what was obviously Kubrick's idea of where the film should
have gone.
Steven Spielberg does a wonderful job contrasting the darker vision
Kubrick had of A. I. with his own lighter, fairy-tale version of how he
feels the film should play. After a few mushy E. T. type moments, the
viewer is literally jolted into a world that could be created by no one
other than the wonderful Stanley Kubrick. This isn't A Clockwork
Orange, but it damn well isn't Hook, either. A lot of the parents in the
theater found the film, and I quote, "disturbing" and, "not for kids at
all." I don't agree with those comments, but I do think that children
should definitely be forewarned that this isn't the sweet little fable
they've been promised in the television commercials. Sure, David the
machine (played by Haley Joel Osment) wants to become a boy, which
is all heartwarming, and junk, but he has a hell of a lot of very
frightening (especially for the under 13 gang) set of obstacles to go
through, if he ever hopes to attain his dreams. This is a hard PG-13,
and that's just the way Kubrick would have wanted it.
Everything "Kubrick" in the film is spectacular. The way David is
befriended by Gigolo Joel (Jude Law, in his best role to date), a
machine made for no reason other than to fuck and suck the ladies in a
seedy part of the country that would put any red light district to
shame. Everything "Spielberg" in the film is slightly shaky, but luckily
there isn't much of it. The Spielberg scene that annoyed me the most
was with "Dr. Know." The entire section seemed robbed from
Spielberg's original Jurassic Park, when Dr. Hammond talks to himself
during the film presentation played to his visitors in hopes of explaining
how his team was able to extract dinosaur DNA from mosquitoes.
Still, I'm making double DD cups out of single A's. Spielberg took a
"concept" by Stanley Kubrick and essentially created a Stanley
Kubrick film. Sure, if Kubrick had made it, it would be far more
intense, a lot more boring (in a good way), and the cutesy stuff would
have been cut, but Spielberg was extremely daring with the pacing and
attitude of the film. Not to mention, I don't think as big of an
audience would have rushed to the theater to see another film as
wonderfully slow-moving as Kubrick's final film, Eyes Wide Shut.
I honestly believe Stanley would have been proud of the picture
Steven created, warts and all. I hope America, and the world, feels
the same way. As Stanley would have wanted it, this film does get slow
moving (think the last 15 minutes of Kubrick's 2001), and I'm afraid
Attention Deficit Disordered America will turn their backs on A. I.,
looking for another hyper-spastic pile of crap like Tomb Raider.
I didn't think we'd ever get to see another big budget movie like A. I.
again. I hope that it's a huge success, so we can see more films, in the
"event" arena, that slow down long enough for a plot and character
development. I'm getting too old to watch another great movie
become a financial disaster. Yes, A. I. is a great movie. Kubrick and
Spielberg produced the perfect baby; not even Conan, and his
wonder-computer, could have seen that one coming.
What are you selling us here???
I noticed "Samsung." I can't remember seeing any others, but I'm
sure they were there. This film really grabbed me, and I sorta lost
myself in it. It was hard to pick out product placements.
If it won an Oscar, what would it be?
"Best attempt at recreating a Stanley Kubrick film" - A. I.
Agree? Disagree? Email me at coerced@rea-alp.com Here's a new one from the New York Premiere...
Here's yet another review for you regarding "A.I."
I saw the world premiere of "A.I." last night at NY's
Ziegfeld--big Steve even introduced the picture,
claiming the last time he premiered a film in NY was
for "Close Encounters."
Without getting into a lot of plot (the rest of your
reviewers are spoiling it for everyone), the film
works on many levels but also fails pretty
consistently. The effects and production design are
first rate--the various robot characters seemlessly
blend into the story and you forget you're watching
effects wizardy. The sets are very impressive,
however a select few seem to be poor man's versions
of "Blade Runner," and this doesn't say much for
"A.I," considering Ridley Scott achieved the same
atmosphere 20 years ago.
Performanes are strong, particularly Osment and Law.
However I do recommend Osment to begin pursuing other
roles, as he's pretty much played all of his cards,
especially after "Pay if Forward" and "Sixth Sense."
Law is a breath of fresh air as Gigolo Joe and his
makeup work is astounding.
Movie has a chance to end several different times, and
it's very obvious where Kubrick would have ended the
film (about 15 minutes before Spielberg does). Movie
runs out of gas and overstays its welcome, and many
exiting moviegoers were saying the same thing (unless
if Spielberg was in the lobby, when then they were
then saying how wonderful it was).
The film is definitely worth seeing, but be advised
that it's being slightly mismarketed. This is dark,
disturbing and sad subject matter, and mainstream
America may tune in this wknd, but don't expect WB and
Dreamworks to be counting the dollars all summer long.
Best character of the movie summer is "Teddy," the
robotic Teddy Bear. Great character.
Annnnd here's a small town America look at the flick... Beware SPOILERS...
Even though i know you've already posted a whole bunch of interviews and
stuff i just felt like maybe i'd like to give you my take as a small town
Indiana boy who got to see the film through a local radio station screening.
When i got to the theater it was about a half hour before show time but the
theater was already jammed with the local Nap town crowd. We were treated to
the new Harry Potter trailer which i really thought was ROW-DEE, much better
than the first trailer which i thought was super lame and i was about to send
a mail bomb to chris columbus via Owl Mail or whatever its called in the
Potter books. There were some great scenes in the castle and Alan Rickman
just looks killer, he is proffessor snape to a tee. Some person who worked
for the radio station came down the aisle with a speaker phone and said that
the AI film had been damaged and that they would be showing Ishtar instead. I
honestly thought there was going to be a riot, luckily things calmed down
when people realized he was joking.
That's when the lights dimmed.
We were then treated to one of the most confusing pieces of cinema in recent
memory, I loved it, I hated it, it was ok. These were the feelings coursing
through my mind when i walked out of the film.
I won't bother you with the run-down of the plot since i'm sure you
already know them, its just that i'm so frustrated by what could have been.
Spielberg Fu*&%d this movie up so badly its hard for me to imagine. Now i
know you've had a bunch of people write you and talk about how great
spielberg did because the visuals and the technology were soooooo goooooood,
and they're right they are. What you haven't heard is what the quality of the
directing was and let me tell you Harry, it really isn't anything to write
home about. The three acts in this film are so discombobulated and out of
synch that (even though you're going to love it) you can't help but wonder
what the hell spielberg was thinking when he wrote some of this stuff. The
first act is strong and lays a great groundwork for the film.
But after his mom leaves him in the woods everything falls apart. I can
see them dumping the bad robot stuff off in the middle of nowhere (i guess)
but what the hell with the moon\balloon that contains a crazy machine hating
circuis owning nutty bar. The entire scene with the motorcycles with the
wolf's heads.....WOLF'S HEADS!!!! WHY THE HELL DO THE MOTORCYCLES HAVE BIG
BEAST HEADS WITH TEETH??!!???? It looks so rediculous, its like Spielberg was
sitting at his table and thinks....."ok this is the future, guys on
motorcycles, wolfs heads, shiny armor.....oh yeah that's money" sorry
spielberg it was just lame. The whole flesh fair thing was probably the most
ludicrous, show off set piece i've ever seen in my life it was shameless.
Oh yeah and the camerawork in this movie is some of the most juvenile
stuff i've ever seen. A director is supossed to use symbolism to provoke a
deeper understanding of the film, but it must be done with subtlety. There
are some shots in this movie that just made me want to puke. EX. the family
is sitting at the table. the shot is from an overhead perspective and is shot
through a donut shaped lamp, it gives the impression that there is a barrier
between the family and David. NO CRAP SPIELBERG, THAT WOULDNT BE CAUSE HE'S A
ROBOT RIGHT??? DUH!!! I felt like i was being treated like an idiot with some
of the directing, but i digress.
So the flesh fair thing just doesn't work, and then Chris Rock shows up,
i almost walked out when i heard his whiny voice. The only saving grace of
the film is the acting by Osment and Law (Law is truly hilarious in this role
playing a cross between james bond and fred astaire).
OH YEAH!! the chick who plays the female pleasure robot is SOOOOOOOO DAMN
HOT!!!! I would see the movie again just to see her walk by.
Anyway so the movie sort of peters on and David finds the answer to this
blue fairy business (find blue fairy = become a real boy) in this booth where
an animated Robin Williams voices an over the top CGI Albert Einstein (i kid
you not).
David finds the blue fairy beneath the sea and you think the movies over
but NOOOOOOOOOOOO, I can just see the Dreamworks meeting:
Katz: "Uhhh so how'd you guys wanna end this movie???"
Geffen: "Dude, check this out, we gotta have some aliens, aliens are cash
money!"
Speilberg: "Hell yah big G, check this out, we have him stay down there for
2000 years, aliens come, they're all smart and whatnot, then they give david
one more day with his mom, badda bing badda bang, williams music does the
rest, we bring home the oscar!!"
Katz and Geffen: " SPEILBERG, you've done it again!!!!"
Again, nice try, the 2,000 year thing is the most rediculous plot point
i've ever seen, everyone in the theater was laughing, it was just so
heinously stupid, the aliens are silly tall beings who (when they place there
hands on David) have his memories flash on their faces like little TV
screens. I actually saw people leaving the theater.
The movie ended and as I was walking out there was only one thought on my
mind and that was Stanley K. He would have H-A-T-E-D this movie, it falls
short and wimps out in every possible respect, it doesn't have the grit or
honesty of a really well-told dark fairy tale (that's all this really is).
Kubrik would have thought this film to be light and fluffy, and poorly
thought out. It just makes me sad to think this will be the last film that
will have his name attached to it. Oh well c'est la vie.
Peach Out
Here's another from that NY Premiere...
I just got back from an A.I. screening in NY and all I can say is, "Save
Your Money". I must admit that I was all pumped up to see this flick. It
was my must see film of the summer. After sitting through over 2 1/2
hours of slop, the only way I could be any more unhappy is if I had to
shell out 10 bucks to see it.
Speilberg has officially lost it. The guy
is so rich and pampered and surrounded by yes-men that he has totally
lost touch. If A.I. were written and directed by Joe Schmoe, it would be
laughed out of the theatre and UNIVERSALLY panned by critics.
Unfortunately, critics and people in general don't have the balls and
self-confidence to criticize Speilberg, let alone Speilberg AND Kubrick.
Well let me step forward and be on record as saying that this movie
sucks!! It is even funnier how pathetic people are. When in the film, I
could see everyone rustling in their chairs and constantly checking
their watches. EVERYONE wanted to leave. However, when the lights went
up, those same people who kept checking their watches like they were
late for a date with Claudia Schiffer, were the same people to heap
gallons of praise on the movie as soon as the credits rolled.
Ralph
Waldo Emerson summed it up best, "Fame is proof that people are
gullible."
Wolfgang out..... Father Geek back with another mostly positive look, but beware spoilers...
I have been fascinated by some of the sharp divisions of opinion
surrounding AI as reviews (official and un-) have come out in the past few
weeks. Today, my wife Sandra, our 18-year-old daughter Crystal, and I all
went to see the 12:00 noon showing at the Uptown here in DC (enormous
screen, great theatre). I believe that Crys was entertained but not
particularly moved. Sandra and I--who between us have 9 kids from our
separate prior marriages--both felt as though we had had a dentist with
sharp, tiny, hand-held instruments working on our hearts for 2 1/2 hours,
with pauses to let us recover, only to dig in again. Why the difference?
Because we're parents and she's not. And therein, I think, lies much of the
great divide.
AI is not hard SF. It is a cautionary horror story cum fairy tale cum myth,
probably one of the best examples since Mary Shelley penned _Frankenstein,
or The Modern Prometheus_. It takes a simple premise--what if we could
teach a machine to love as a child loves, to think as a child thinks, and
to want to be loved as a child is loved?--and carries it through to some
excruciating, non-obvious and unflinching consequences that, I suspect,
resonate primarily with parents who have had children of that age.
As with Frankenstein, the core of AI involved hubris, temptation,
rejection, and consequences. Hubris was the unthinking arrogance of Dr.
Hobby and associates in tampering with the ecology of family and love
without due regard for the unintended consequences--set, ironically,
against a backdrop of melted icecaps (frankly, _my_ first clue this wasn't
hard SF) and other unintended consequences of meddling with the physical
ecology at large.
Temptation was Monica, watching her flesh-and-blood son Martin in cryonics
for five years, not knowing whether a cure would ever be found for him
(another fairy tale/myth motif), now being confronted with a machine,
called David, that looks like a little boy, that--if and when she says the
magic words--will fall eternally in love with her. Monica has a void inside
which remains gaping and unhealed because of Martin's suspension between
life and death, which is what makes her temptation so real. In far too many
movies and novels, the key temptation is so stupid and and the consequences
so obvious that I lose most or all sympathy for the character (e.g., King's
_Pet Sematary_). What made this movie so painful for me was how realistic I
felt the temptation was. If I had one child, frozen, near death, with no
clear prospect of ever having him/her back and no prospect of ever having
another--yes, I might be tempted, and I think my wife even more so, to have
something like David to fill that void, and we would stumble into the trap
without realizing what we've done.
Rejection comes with the realization of the artificial, unnatural aspect of
the relationship. Children grow; they mature (usually); there is always a
bittersweet aspect to losing the simple, passionate love of a child,
especially once they become brain-dead adolescents ;-), but one wishes
children to grow and go out on their own. Kubrick/Spielberg first carefully
lay out the slowly-unfolding hell of having a child-like automaton with
real feelings stuck at that particular emotional age, then accelerate and
compound that hell by bringing back the real child, warts and all. Can one
love a machine when one's own flesh and blood is at hand? What are our
loyalties, our instincts? Martin's and David's reactions to each other are
very believable (speaking particularly as someone who has had experience
merging two sets of kids together into one family), as are frankly the
different reactions to the situation between and her husband Henry (with
whom, remember, David has _not_ bonded; a classic parent/step-parent
divide, one with strong Oedipal/Freudian overtones). Martin is less
pleasant, less pure in his love, less physically perfect, less lovable--but
his is Monica and Henry's flesh, their progeny; having nearly lost him
once, can they reject him in favor of something that runs off electric
current, something manufactured? What would that say about them as humans,
as parents? Yet David really loves Monica, and she has to choose between
him and the rest of her very-human family.
Whatever the twists and turns of the future projected, the emotional
consequences for all involved, but particularly for David, are as
inexorable as they are logical. For me, one of the most haunting lines of
the film is when Monica abandons David in the forest (another classic fairy
tale touch), shouting cautions even as she does so, then pauses
and says"I'm sorry I never told you about the
world." There's a deep, wrenching stab at any parent's heart, capturing the
twin heartbreaks of forcing a child out into the world, away from the
safety comfort of a parent's arms (with a loss of security) and into all
the pain and cruelty and tragedy that the child is likely unprepared for.
David then embarks on a classic, almost Campbellian fairy tale quest,
complete with faithful sidekick (Teddy) and rogue knight (Joe). He's off to
see the wizard (Dr. Know), to win the Sphinx-like riddling challenge and
find out what he needs to know to become a real boy so that Monica will
love him. But unlike the comforting, Disneyized fairy tales we've come to
accept, this one holds to the hard truth--there is no blue fairy, David
will never become a real boy, and Monica will never love him the way he
loves her, the way he so desperately wants to be loved, as someone unique
and irreplaceable--and this is where it is most wrenching. David's hopes
are raised to their highest peak by the mysterious message in the Dr. Know
booth and its literal unfolding as he and Joe travel to the 'ends of the
earth'--and then they are utterly smashed as he finds what lies at the end
of his quest. His homicidal (robocidal?) rage at finding another, duplicate
David is chilling and utterly consistent, calling to mind Henry's
seemingly-overblown worry much earlier in the film that "If he [David] is
capable of love, then he is also capable of hate." And then all his hopes
are utterly crushed as he discovers that he himself is merely a simulacrum
of Hobby's dead son David, and that he is being mass produced for human
consumption. It leads to two attempts at suicide, one out of despair, and
one based on obsession with his goal leading to indifference to everything
else, trapped in a dark prison of his own making.
Some have objected to the third part of the movie, yet I think it was very
much keeping in spirit with the old-style fairy tales and myths. It has the
irony of robot survival and human extinction (brought on, with further
irony, by a profound ice age). It has the resurrection motif, with
acceptance into the company of gods or near-gods, not as an equal, but as
an honored icon (much as Greek gods elevating heroic mortals to Olympus or
into the constellations). And, as gods, they grant not what David wants but
what they can--a single day with Monica (Clarke's third law should be
enough to deal with any quibble about DNA), with no competition from Dad or
Martin or from the world at all. Again the Oedipal/Freudian overtones may
seem a bit blatant, but it's still utterly true to life, for a child of
that emotional age, as to what heaven would be. And David's choice--that he
would rather have that one day, with the increased sense of irrevocable
loss afterwards, than not to have it at all--goes to the heart of vast
numbers of myths and tales about what is so essentially human. Indeed,
David for all intents and purposes now _is_ the human race. And as the day
ends and Monica passes away, David--for the first time in his 2000-year
existence--sleeps and dreams.
But does he wake?
Bruce F. Webster (bwebster@bfwa.com)
Washington, DC
Here's one that may tell us alot about what's going on with this movie, Its been recut (?) from the one most people have been seeing...
At the advance screening of A.I. tonight at Ontario Mills, in
Ontario, California... the narration that people were complaining about at
screenings was GONE! I have to say that this was an important choice for the
mood of the film. The film I saw (half of.. more on that later) tonight was
moody, creepy and much less Spielbergian... more Kubrickian. This was the first
time I had ever seen 30 people jump out of their seats because a character
laughs. This audience was in love with this version of the film....
at least the first hour of it...
After focus problems during the opening credits, we were treated
to the antics of what appeared to be a first time projectionist. The film
was badly matted, out of focus and off frame. When they got it back in frame
it was matted wrong and we got to see William Hurt from the neck down during
his entire opening monologue. We were treated to the bottom half of what
appeared to be a very jarring special effect when I finally walked to the
back of the cinema and knocked on the glass so loudly that I startled a few
people in the audience. At this point all seemed well.
Then, just a few
minutes after the flesh fair, when Joe and David speak to Dr Know, they
started playing the last reel of the film... only backward and UPSIDE
DOWN!!!! I'd say that took talent. So, here I am, witness to one of the most
creepy, moving, visually stunning and challenging first halves of any film I
have ever seen.
I find someone from Warner's outside the theatre along with 1 or 2
other people who realized they were watching the end backward and upside
down, and she was bummed. Very nice lady who I guess assumed they would
start the film over. They did not. They gave us all 2 passes and apologised.
All of this after looking forward to this film since before my marriage,
nearly a decade. My heart is a little broken, but I'll survive. Should I be
thankful for the tickets? Respectfully, yes. But I think that should be the
minimum to expect.
I really feel AMC dropped the ball with this one, and
should have found a way. Yes, I am aware that re-splicing would have taken a
while. Most people would have left. But the ones that stayed should have
been treated to a showing. Instead, we get to come back tomorrow and wait in
lines. After all, this isn't an advance screening of the latest screwball
comedy. This is the legacy of Kubrick. And we are his fans. Sad. Do you
remember when the people who ran theatres loved film? Now it's a summer job,
even for management. Sad. All of this after praising AMC for having the most
comfortable theatres in town, and the best audio. I hope they can make up
for it, but I doubt they will.
ILK...
P.S. The nice Warner lady gave everyone A.I. (the game) posters.
Sooooooo, There you have it, a real mixed bag, ultimately you'll have to see it and makeup your own mind. Father Geek suggests a Matinee for the first viewing... then... if you feel its worth it, another screening at whatever price you feel justified paying... personally ol' Father Geek will be paying the cheap price for his second look, and my first peek was for free...
-
+ Expand All
-
im liking all the A.I. reviews, but im seeing so many similarities, between the reviews here, the 6 over at my site and even the big name ones at Time and Newsweek. The film is obviously perplexing and challenging, and how many films can you say that about? Ive nver heard reviews for a film where even people who dont like it reccomed it. Creepy...
-
That still all least 2 hours of brilliance, 2 hours more than anything released by a studio this year. No way I'm just renting this sucker.
-
And we can see for ourselves.
-
I remember watching 2001: A Space Odyssey when it first came out in 1968 with my mother. She was expecting another cheesy sci-fi film and got far more than she bargained for. In fact, she hated the movie's guts and thought it was sooooo boring. As an 11 year old, I was completely blown away by the film and felt like I had been truly transported into the future, never to view movies the same way. Whatever its merits, A.I. will definitely polarize viewers the same way Kubrick's other films have. Stanley Kubrick will not have it any other way.
-
Considering that the reviews being posted everywhere else are overwhelmingly positive, it just seems weird that suddenly AICN seems to be going out of their way to post mostly negative stuff about it. I'm not suggesting any dark conspiracy. I'm just saying they seem to be be favoring those who were disappointed in the film, much as Harry and Moriarty seem to have been. But if you go anywhere else and read a review, from a critic or a fan, and it's positive. So nobody should take the negative stuff they've been reading here as the general consensus on "A.I."
-
The story of a robot boy named Harry and his comic book salesman Dad named Ghepetto-Geek. Their dream is that Harry will become a real boy one day and start a movie website. Things go terribly, terribly wrong, when -- as all robots must-- Harry goes on a killing spree. And while he never does become a real boy, he is tried as an adult!
-
HMMMMM ??????
-
Jun 27, 2001 9:33:11 AM CDT
Stepping Out Of Character Dept.: Does Anybody Else Think That A
by buzz maverik
In some of the other AI talkbacks, I see all of this "STANLEY IS GOD!" "WATCHING A STANLEY MOVIE IS BETTER THAN AN ORGASM!" but they never mention anything except A.I. or EYES WIDE SHUT. INEVITABILITY DEPT.: "Hey, Buzz, people are mentioning those movies because they're the most recent" as well as being the only ones they've actually seen. Stanley Kubrick was the master of the science fiction film, of course, with 2001 & A CLOCKWORK ORANGE. He was Quentin Tarantino before Pa Tarantino had ever grown the sperm with THE KILLING (and he discovered Jim Thompson long before Hollywood and was the only one to ever use him correctly, aside from Tarantino who was not directly using Thompson. If Thompson and Ringo Lam could have produced a bastard son, it would have been our Q.T. and that's a compliment). The war film with PATHS OF GLORY and of course FULL METAL JACKET (the best anti-recruiting film ever. When Buzz Jr. gets to service age we're going to sit down and watch FULL METAL JACKET and SAVING PRIVATE RYAN and BORN ON THE FOURTH OF JULY). Anyway, enough bitching. Some of y'all are Kubrick fans, no doubt, and some of you just like dead guys.
-
Man I dunno. Is Spielberg right for all this William Gibson stuff anyway? Cyberpunk is old hat. This should've been kept short and simple.
-
That's my opinion anyway. Every single one of the films I deem "classics" are movies with brilliant endings. Look at Star Wars, Titanic and The Terminator, they had unforgettable finales. If AI's ending is not to the liking of so many reviewers already, I think the movie is gonna really disappoint.
-
Dammit, this movie looked so damn promising, but maybe this is a good thing for us non-blessed...personally i like having doubts about a film before i see it, therefore the dissappointment fsctor is low. Im not sure how im gonna feel. AND WHY THE FUCK IS KID ROCK IN THIS???? Is this Joe Dirt 2: The Revenge of Dirt? Oh well i guess theres always Minority report. Steve, dont make movies that need to mean something, yes youre damn good, and yes youre movies are good, unfortunately lately theyve all been subpar. Make a stupid movie once and a while...Direct a Kevin Smith movie, have him do a script and you direct it, man, fanboys would have a field day with that...fuck that, better yet DO EPISODE 3!!! FUCK LUCAS, IF EP.2 huffs kids then all hope for the raging bulls is lost. Do something sweet, that makes us care. Peace Out
-
Jun 27, 2001 10:03:56 AM CDT
Sounds to me like Spielberg tried to make a dedication to Kubric
by the hitman
Some people love it....some people hate it....sounds like most of Kubrick's films to me. I'm a fan of Kubrick but there are some of his films that even I don't like. Now I personally hate all these comparisons of Spielberg to Kubrick......Spielberg is not Kubrick, he has his own style....as Kubrick had his own. And for all the Kubrick purists out there, I'm sure you wouldn't be so critical of this film had Kubrick directed it.....and as a reminder, he chose Spielberg to direct it....he felt like it would be more up Spielberg's alley. Then he passed away and despite it all Spielberg thought it would be great to bring his friend's vision finally to the screen. Whether you like it or you hate it, you have to respect that and it is rare in Hollywood for someone to do that. This isn't a Kubrick movie, hell it's not your typical Spielberg movie either....it's a combination of the two. So I say "Quit your bitchin" and appreciate it for what it is.....a dedication to a friend.
-
Bad endings are often made better upon the video release of a Director's Cut. Even the Abyss' ending was helped a bit by this. However, in this case, it sounds like scenes would actually have to not only be added, but CUT to help the slothful-sounding tempo (a la Blade Runner). Still can't wait to see this honkin' thing, though. I mean, hell...I also heard horrible reviews for the Abyss twelve (GACK!!) years ago, but I still just had to see that CGI column of water on the big screens.
-
And I did say something about AI, but I guess Harry doesn't like nut or chip throwers... It's cool...
-
I think a lot of people going in to see this film, have been expecting something else. It's not an action flick! It's an emotional drama wrapped around a SFX background.
Don't go into this movie expecting "Raiders of the Lost Ark" or "Jurassic Park" type action. It's a deep movie that makes you think and parts may be "mushy" or "disturbing". Expect that and look for more of a "2001", "Close Encounters", or "Empire of the Sun" type movie. Then you'll enjoy it more! If you're looking for a cool Summer action flick...you'll probably hate it! -
Jun 27, 2001 10:38:37 AM CDT
sounds like a lot of disappointed Spielberg fans who instead got
by fatal discharge
I still think the marketing of the film is the problem. Putting up expectations of cute and cuddly "E.T." sci-fi with the "I'm a boy" line and getting a dark depressing tale is a recipe for disappointment. Of course, how do you market dark depressing tales? It's almost impossible. Eyes Wide Shut had the same problem - market it on the faces of Tom and Nicole and sex. Even though the film was brilliant, the mass audience (which don't get Kubrick films anyway) was again disappointed. Judging from the idiotic reviews up there (commenting on the clothes in the film and saying Kid Rock's talent was wasted BWAHAHAHA !!!!), the masses have again said that they can't sit still for a quiet, introspective film that doesn't have loads of action scenes, crass humor or rapid-fire editing cuts. The film may not be a total success but at least it's adult and has a brain, something I can't say about most of the by-the-numbers crap that Hollywood spews out every year. By the way, there's a great, funny and informative article on the author Brian Aldiss whose story was the basis for A.I. and his dealings with Kubrick and Spielberg at http://www.inside.com/jcs/Story?article_id=33576&pod_id=10
-
i can't wait to see this and i'm just taking every review with a grain of salt. the most disturbing reviews are those that like/dislike the film for idiotic reasons, i.e. "spielberg is entering a new phase in his career." i've said this before and i'll say it again: the best/most interesting reviews are those that concentrate SOLELY and CRITICALLY on a piece of art and NEVER take the artist(s) or their previous work into consideration. it doesn't matter who directed A.I. or a clockwork orange or saving private ryan... i just want to know what you thought of the film.
-
not in THAT way you freaks!!! Actually I think you should add "Johnny Get Your Gun" to those anti war films for Buzz junior as I think that (the inspiration for Metallicas One) may be the worst err best for that purpose...although Alls Quiet and Galaiaiaipoli should get a mention. Or you can just show him Delta Force 2 and hand him a Ted Nugent album and a shotgun like I plan to when I have kids. Oh this is about AI though...hmmm lets see it WILL be good and yes this site gets bugs up its ass about certain films and directors and bashes them while pushing other for no discernable reason. In the end its all taste and even if AI has a bizarre ending I think I'll dig it. I just wanna see that Osmet kid squirt some tears dammit! I think he bangs his mom in the end...awww thats a Kubrick ending! I just can't wait for AI2 by Cameron (A Cameron Speilberg Kubrick production) where they do this film but 'better' and Haley remakes himself into a liquid metal dinosaur and takes out the super evolved robots his creator spawned to turn the world back over to Kevin Costners character 'the Mariner' from Waterworld. AI and Waterworld do the big crossover we all want...thats right! Sweet!!!!!
-
Jun 27, 2001 11:24:06 AM CDT
Why has nobody mentioned the REALLY important thing about this f
by roosterbooster
Namely that mildly attractive young lady in the skin-tight PVC catsuit who was featured here a few weeks ago? Who is she? Is she a major character? Does she take her clothes - oh, no. Of course she doesn't.
-
Other than TPM, seldom have I seen such a polarizing film that has divided the opinions of the geek nation (of which I'm happy to be a part). This only confirms what happens when film makers who are complex in their own right (even if Spielberg is naysayed for being at times candycoated) have combined material in one product. It also confirms that A.I. will be, if nothing else WORTHY OF DEBATE, as opposed to the polyglot of waste (save Memento and Shrek) that has visited theaters this summer.
-
Jun 27, 2001 11:47:35 AM CDT
"Pinocchio IS A REAL BOY!" according to that little hottie from
by uncapie
I'll give the movie a chance and see it at the matinee. But, what's next? "Westworld" with dinosaurs? Oh, they already did that.
-
The polar icecaps have melted and the negativity is just flooding in! As a matter of fact it's probably all of this hot air that's responsible in the first place. Most of you so haven't even seen this flick and already you've organized a lynch mob based on the eyewitness accounts of a handful of fellow geeks! Let this thing go to trial before you pass judgement people. Then go ahead and condemn it to movie Hell. I mean, you're minds made up already.
-
these are just comments from a bunch of geeks. which has a place.. this place.. but dont call them reviews.. just 'chatter', you know? plus.. lot49'r.. kubrick uneven? full metal jacket was supposed to have a dramatically different second half.. just like the book it was adapted from did! and 'average filmgoers' are not going to come out of the theater comparing it to Kubrick.. they are going to come out entertained. I love the film. (that's my 'review')
-
I agree with the guy that said not since TPM has there been this many dissenting opinions about a film. I like how people bitch and moan about the "Blockbusters" like Mummy Returns and Tomb Raider being empty and boring, but then not realizing that AI is just what they have been waiting for. AI sounds incredible from the standpoint of getting you thinking and discussing the movie, and seeing a unique film. I don't know how many times I have gotten in discussions this summer at bars or parties about movies and "Memento" has come up. And from that the conversation leads to other "unique" films like "Being John Malkovich" and "The Truman Show". Those are the movies that resonate with people. I've no doubt that AI is failing to meet expectations. Most of you seemed to herald the movie as the "Best of the Year" without even seeing it. Be thankful for what it is and see it with an open mind. Now that the wind has been taken out of its sails, maybe the remaining viewers will get more out of it with (somewhat) lowered expectations.
Also, "Temple of Doom" is no turkey. Excessive and over-the-top yes, but when the movie gets going it never lets up and delivers as a sequel to the greatest adventure movie ever made. -
Man, Al Jourgensen must be doing crack now in addition to his herion. Nice Skeltor mask.
-
Come on People!! If any other filmmaker made any of the other films that Spielberg made..the exact same way..they'd be loved!
It's only because Spielberg has had so many hits..people only expect the next Masterpiece and a dawn of a new era in film!! Give him a break! A.I. is an incredible film and it's incredibly original!!
There are soooo many really bad movies out there...and now..this one comes and so many people wanted it to be the next Raiders of the Lost Ark!
It's not!! I've enjoyed all of Spielbergs films and loved, 1941! I think it's a classic!! As more people probably agree 20 years later! Temple of Doom..Classic as well! All Indy movies are classic! Always..not a classic..but I enjoyed it and have watched it many times! I even liked The Lost World. I was shocked to hear so much bad stuff about it! It was awesome!! In some ways I liked it better than JP1.
Every movie Spielberg has direct is great! I'm not a film geek and don't look into a movie to find any fault I can! I even enjoyed Pearl Harbor. I thought it was a little too long..but other than that..it was fine!
People say this film doesn't have enough action...It's not supposed to.
Anyway, these type of movies are farrr better than those film geek independants that critics LOVE!! THOSE are boring as hell!! The only independent movies I have ever liked have been the Kevin Smith films! What does that say about me...NOTHING! It's my opinion! That's why!! -
Kubrick was actually the one who was determined to make the story more of a fairy tale, not Spielberg. Therefore, there is probably some truth to the idea that Kubrick wanted Spielberg to direct this film. The major problem i have with Kubrick is the existential philosphy that his work is based on. As an earlier post points out, how Kubrick defines the human condition and the essence of man is reflected in his films. Part of the problem many have with Kubrick is that they can't relate to his definition of the human condition. It is based on the false premise that man was able to successfully kill God. The problem is, once this premise is assumed as true, no objective morality exists. That's what leads to Nietzche's theory of the Super man turning into a Hitler. The true logical conclusion of this definition of the essence of man is rising above the herd, and gaining power over them. Hitler actually took Nietzche to his logical conclusion. However,to say that "Man faces an awesome task to behave properly and accepts the mantle of responsibility" after he kills God does not logically follow. How does one define behaving properly in a world with no objective morality? How does one "play fair" in world with no objective morality? Such terms are subjective in the Godless world, and are terms only used by the "herd", or the weak. The only logical "moral imperative" is power. Therefore, many are confused as to how the next step from killing God is evolving to the next level of intelligence. How does treating the "monster" we created as "human" instead of killing it logically follow, and more importantly, how does this help our intelligence as humans evolve? How is artificial intelligence even potentially superior to human intelligence when it can only know what we put into it? By the time we are intelligent enough to create artificial intelligence that can think for itself, much less have the ability to feel and love, we will already have evolved to the next level of intelligence, and be far ahead of what we created. The next stage of man can't be found in artificial intelligence, because a.i. wouldn't be man, but a creation of man. So, both Man and SuperMan, and Man and SuperToy are both not logical. I think that's why large portions of our population who either don't want to kill God, or those who are unable to kill God, cannot buy into the world of many of Kubrick's films, and many sci fi films for that matter, where it is assumed God will simply disappear because many want Him to.
Anyway, the idea that we should give AI some credit just for making us think, i agree with to a point. It is a welcome change from the Mummy's and Tomb Raider's. However, one still has to question if the writer and director truly had a clear idea of what he was trying to communicate. Kubrick's films reflect the meaninglessness of modern subjective philosophy, but at least he seemed to know he was doing it. He purposely illustrated this in the ambiguity of his films. I'm not sure Spielberg would have this philosophical basis for any ambiguity he might attempt to illustrate. Does the movie make you think because it TRULY has depth(a reflection of the filmaker) or is it making you think because your trying to figure out a confused plot for what is simply a shallow story. One can't confuse sentimentality for depth, or emotion for meaning.Spielberg may be guily of this confusion. The initial question brought up in the film, whether humans can love back an artificial being with the single emotion of love, seems inferior to the question " is the artificial being truly experiencing love?" kubrick knew he had to make this a fantasy, because let's face it, programming something to love is a big leap to simply accept as a premise without questioning it.
-
Chris Rock and Kid Rock are both in AI?!? I didn't know that. I thought it was just Jude Law and that kid who sees dead people. I'm definitely going to have to see this flick!
-
Really wanted his opinion.
So I wheeled him in to a private
screening. - Then "Clockwork
style" - made him watch it.
He was very opinionated about it!
But you know how he hates interviews - so I promised I wouldn't relay his opinions.
Anyway - I can say he still kicks
ass - we fought Billy Boy
and his gang after we videed
the flick.
Now THAT was real horror show
Oh my brothers....
-
Yes!! Im the first to post! Im going to go tell my mom, she will be so proud!
Idiots. -
the good thing about working in a movie theatre is that i get to see crappy movies for free! haw haw...i have a feel AI is going to be one of those crappy flicks...but hell, i liked Star Wars Episode 1...so who knows..i might approve.
-
Bjork and Chris Cunningham say more in their four minute music video "All is Four Love" than what Spielberg says in 2 1/2 hours. Cunningham did most of the android drawings for Kubrick years ago.
I will never understand how the distribution of feature films works.
SExy BEAST is absolutely brilliant! Only in 9 theaters across the US? With the highest earnings per theater? Surely someone is on holiday in the costa del sol and not doing their job. I have watched a superb film and not many people can agree-cos they can't watch it;and they are really missing out.
Tough titty. -
Let's just get into a big protracted argument about 'Barry Lyndon'. Personally, I think that it stands with '2001' as Uncle Stan's masterpiece? What about you?
-
Everybody's too uptight about the hybrid. Wipe Spielberg out of mind, wipe Kubrick out of mind and try to enjoy the fucking thing for what it is. If the film had no buzz, no history and no credits everybody would be off their asses praising it. It's a summer movie! Spielberg's a great director, Kubrick was a visionary, this is not Kubrick's last hurrah. Kubrick's body of work will forever stand apart from many, many, many directors. Spielberg is derivative, and Kubrick was a true original. Agree or disagree, that's how I see it. AI is just Spielberg being derivative of Kubrick now.
-
This is what happend the first time that 2001 was released so there is nothing that makes me more sure that this is that movie that was waiting for!
-
Jun 27, 2001 11:58:09 PM CDT
Still missing more than 6.000.000.000 individual A.I. reviews!
by lord_soth
Including mine.
-
I'm with the film geek above who thinks 1941 is a classic. I also think Close Encounters is a dazzling and accessible piece of scifi. 2001 I still don't get but Dr. Strangelove is one of the greatest comedies ever made. Nothing like a war movie that makes you laugh and think at the same time. I also agree with the above poster who advises to wipe the slate clean before seeing this film. It should be regarded as niether a Spielberg movie nor a Kubrick movie, just a movie.
-
Jun 28, 2001 1:31:08 AM CDT
Sorry to break the bad news, but Jack Lemmon died today aged 76
by marty mcsuperfly
From AP: Lemmon died in the early hours of this morning from complications related to cancer, said spokesman Warren Cowan in Los Angeles.
His wife, Felicia and two of his children were at his bedside at USC/Norris Cancer Clinic, Cowan said.
-
Jun 28, 2001 4:34:17 AM CDT
Like any of the people who posted these reviews would like a mov
by indiana jones
Moriarty is all about action films...look at his review for the new Jet-Li "movie" for Christsake! And these reviews...I have never read a batch of more incoherent, rambling, disorganized thoughts.
-
Come on, do you haveta invoke "Buffy" every single time out? Look, we know you like it. Heck, I even like it. It's a perfectly fun, enjoyable, well paced little show. But what does it say about the sad state of pop culture when a neat little trifle like BVS is being held up in some circles as the standard by which all else must be judged? Wait, I just answered my own question.
-
The new trailers combined with a ton of word of mouth...this thing is gonna reek folks, can't ya just feel it?
-
FREDDY GOT FINGERED WAS A MASTERPIECE. IT DOES NOT DESERVE TO EVEN BE MENTIONED IN THE SAME BREATH AS TOMCATS. THE PEOPLE WHO INSIST THAT ITS CRAP EITHER HATE TOM GREEN AND DON'T WANT TO SEE HIM ACCEPTED. OR THEY'RE RETARDED MUMMY 2 LOVERS. I AM ALWAYS IN DISBELIEF WHEN I HEAR PEOPLE TRASH THE MOVIE. GO READ THE NEW YORK TIMES REVIEW OF IT: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/20/arts/20FRED.html IS THERE A GODDAMED CONSPIRACY AGAINST TOM GREEN?
-
He made billions but that wasnt enough.
He wanted Oscar.
After several tries, he got Oscar.
Then a filmmaker of considerable repute dies, so he just has to step in and shine in the other guy's light too.
It was bound to happen.
In this whole affair I find it interesting that he never wrote CE3K.
I had alot of respect for him as an artist because of that film. But if others actually wrote it?
I think both Lucas and Spielberg are tired. Surrounded by yes men and billions of dollars they arent able to make good creative decisions.
Ah well. -
Look Stanley despised Steven.
Stanley HATED Hollywood - exactly
what SS stands for.
But, not biting the hand that
could strangle him, he obsequiously courted the Hollywood
powers too.
So, he paid his respects to the
throne of spielberg.
But this movie? Good or Bad
it's Kubricks last dark joke!
Thanks Stan - it was funny...
Adios!
droog -
I saw A.I. the other night, and have since been reading all the reviews. My first personal reaction to the film was: Visually amazing - but emotionally cold. But I have been thinking about some of the scenes and images ever since I saw it. The film is haunting. My first reaction was that Spielberg blew it because, unlike Pinocchio, we (the audience) never could really care if David became a real boy. He's a robot. Why should the audience care about thos "robot"? But that was only my first reaction. Many reviewers don't care for the third act - 2000 years in the future, a post script. After a few days, thinking about the film on the whole, I realize how important this third act is to the film. David represents mankind's child. A "living" time capsule who embodies the human desire to love and want to be loved. If given the choice to live forever without love or to live for only 24 hours with the chance to spend it with love, we humans choose love. This may sound "deep" (or "stupid" to some) but that's what this film is about. A.I. is the deliberate work of a smart, talented pair of artists (Spielberg and Kubrick). I intend to see it again. It may not be Spielberg's best film, it may not be "genius". But there is a larger meaning to the allegory or parable presented on screen.
-
What would Stan think? part 2.
Can't you figure it out?
Look Stanley hated every frame
- every inch - of Speilberg's
filmography.
Every syrupy, Disneyized,
smaltzy, pablum spewing, blasting
John William's, child pandering,
claptrap!
And the idiots that flocked
to see it.
Believe it.
-
Jun 28, 2001 7:55:01 AM CDT
I already know a lot of people are not gonna get this movie
by terry_1978
As soon as it the thing is over, I know people are gonna be screaming, "I want my money back!", or "what the hell was that?". A lot of them, particularly where I live here in Indiana(aka suburbia central) are gonna be expecting a science fiction adventure type flick, when it's really more of an art film, to be honest. Add that to the fact that it's gonna look like the ending is imminent, then a whole new chapter begins.....people's attention spans as far as movies(well, during the summer anyways) are extremely short and are looking for straight up fast paced action flicks. I already know when I go to see this thing it's gonna be full of parents with their children, teen-agers who think it's gonna be the total thrill ride thing, and hopefully a few of my AICN brethren, or at least some people who have played the game online. I need somebody to relate to when I go to the theatre tomorrow night.
-
I believe I am the perfect type of person to see this movie. Why? Because I don't know shit about Kubrick and Spielberg. I've seen quite a few Spielberg films, but I couldn't recognize his style from anything else. I've seen about two Kubrick films, and liked them, but could not recognize his style from anything else. Therefore it will be impossible for me to compare this film to Kubrick's original idea. I am completely incapable of sitting there in the theater going "that's a Kubrick idea" and "That there is a Spielberg touch" at every passsing scene.
There fore if someone asks me what I thought, I wouldn't bulk up my little review with a bunch of comparisons that only die hard film fans and aspiring directors would understand. By the way, if ANY ONE of you does not see this movie based solely on a fewe bad reviews, you will be a soulless automaton following Big Brother in all his "benevolence". "Oh, THANK YOU, AICN! You saved me $8!
Think for yourselves, DAMMIT!! Everyone has different tastes! I cannot tell you how infuriating it is when I read a review telling everyone to "stay home and save money"! The nerve of some people to try and convince to accept there own opinion and not make one yourself!
-
Jun 28, 2001 8:27:31 AM CDT
Show of hands of TalkBackers who have actually SEEN the movie?
by poxyvonsinister
Everyone? Hmm? Yeah, thought so. Wait until you've actually seen the train wreck before you start counting the bodies.
-
Saw AI last night at a screening in Toronto
SUPER-SPOILERS
Summary: loved it until the end.
Within minutes, I switched my mindset from "serious, sci-fi dark human drama" into "faux serious, campy sci-fi, dark human drama" - basically, I surrendered myself to the feel of the movie
thought Haley Joel Osmont was great - didn't really see a flaw in his acting, except...
the writing was really crappy - I'm talking about the dialogue and voice-overs
I mean, the transitions were fairly strained, but that didn't bother me as much as the shit that the actors were spewing ("I'm sorry I didn't tell you about the WORLD!?")
But even that didn;t bother me that much, because SO MUCH OF IT WORKED
David worked so well. Teddy worked well. The mother, although flat, worked well.
Then the jungle and Gigolo Joe - even the Flesh Fair was okay - although a litle much.
Loved Gigolo Joe - thought Jude Law was amazing. Another thing that worked - robots acted within their reasonably defined limits as robots - Jude Law was perfect at that.
Okay - so all that was good.
Now the bad - aka "What was with Basil Exposition there at the end?"
TOO MUCH EXPLAINING - Allan Hobby explaining at the beginning (okay, that's standard Kubrick -would't be surprised if he wrote that) - Ben Kingsley's Voice Overs, Allan Hobby again later. A whole lot of explaining and not a lot of stuf happening - like Allan Hobby having to explain everything about how they got David to go there - a better writer would have figured out how to let David learn that without the "Basil". So that kinda sucked.
So did much of the dialogue. I can't remember all of it now, but most of it really sucked
But then...
the ending - the absolutely crappy, shitty, made-me-angry ending
"okay...so....um....here's the deal....ummmm....we can't resurrect your dead mother....ummmm....from the memories we managed to grab out of the air......uhhh...unless......unless?.....ah....right.....unless we have some of their DNA......sorry....wished we could help kid.....see....ya....oh...uh.....what?......oh shit man......uhhhh....hold on a second..........ok, ok, ok, yeah, ok.......okay....we can do it for ya kid, but only for 24 hours.......how's that sound Senor Spielbergo?"
"Yeah, yeah, whatever...godammmit, you made me lose count...$100 million, $200 million, $300 million..."
From exactly how far up their asses did they pull that one? I mean come on. And the alien sitting next to him, explaining the world? The X-Files mythology had better plot resolution than this.
I immediately thought that it would have been a better ending to have them re-create a "virtual" world for David to live in with his mommy - based on his memories of her...and he could live there for eternity - because the point was that he was not at fault for his quest - his journey was pure - based on his programming - so he should have gotten the best reward possible - to live in perpetuity in his perfect world - with his loving mommy and nothing else - kinda like that Star Trek episode with Moriarty...oh crap...maybe that's where I'm pulling this one...
The thing is that I know that this is how Kubrick wanted it to end - with David 200 years in the future, all mankind gone and super-evolved AI's running the world - did you actually think those were "aliens"?
But very simply, there was only one way to make that ending work - don't have them speak - it should have been evocative, mysterious and wonderful. Instead it was like attending Ben Kingsley's lecture on the history of the last (next) 2000 years.
Anyway, you get my point.
What this film needed was a better writer and a stronger producer - someone who would say to Spielberg "this won't work like this. Its too much explaining....get me Quentin Tarantino, David Mamet and Christopher McQuarrie...and that Nolan guy who did MEMENTO - anyone who can write a fucking story! NOW!!!"
and a better ending.
Be Seeing You
PKD (aka: Number 6) -
Jun 28, 2001 11:54:33 AM CDT
And notice in my review - no SPielberg or Kubrick hating or lovi
by pkd
People make the mistake of camparing this film to this or that film by this or that director - yes, there were a lot of Kubrick moments - and a lot of Stevie-moments - some were cool, some didn't work at all - but none of that really matters - what matters is this movie - as it is - alone, without reference to other movies.
-
ok, i havent seen this movie yet but KID ROCK is in it i hear!?!?!? o my fucking god! i cant believe it!!!!! seriously, is this JOE DIRT 2:RETURN OF THE BAD MOVIES? o! my bad, they're already here! if kid rock is in this when i see AI for myself, i will be the most pissed man in the world because anyone that is not a REAL actor cannot be in a movie! my rule!! i said it, its in stone now, the 11th commandment! ok? good. lets see. kid rock, the most hick-trailer trash-terrible-corny-trashy-cheesy-fucking faggot-wannabe bad boy-wannabe pimp is in one of the most waited films of the year. and kid rock does not deserve and hasnt earned (and never will) the right to be in the same film related to stanley kubrick, the best director of all time and the first man to bring extreme vilence to us all thank the lord!! now pop stars have always tried to litter the silver screen. bjork, madonna, and now kid rock. god help us all. u know? i wouldnt even want kid rock to be in pearl harbor! i didnt even want him in joe dirt!!
-
That was the band Ministry in the concert scene. I can see how the reviewer was confused as they were all wearing masks. The film is incredible, by the way. It's invading my every thought and nightmare.
Also, I too am getting sick of all this Freddy Got Fingered bashing. Of course, a bunch of 60-year-old critics didn't understand it! And judging by the box-ofice very few of you even bothered to see it. But it's far, FAR better than the reception it received.
-
Recent reviews of
-
AICN has definitely been a consistent disappointment this year. Despite all of the success in the past (I remember when AICN really started kicking with reports of
-
How does one's expectations determine the quality or greatness of a film? They don't. So i wish people would stop defending bad or mediocre films, or even very good films, but not great, with the notion that the reason for it's lack of greatness is the high level of expectation. Maybe this argument would have some validity if no film in history has ever lived up to high expectations. Without going into a long list, we all know this isn't true, because many films have. Therefore high expectations for Speilberg is a compliment to him, and should exist, because he has met them in the past. When Raiders was first being introduced, i remember everyone having very high expectations, anticipating the collaboration of Lucas and Spielberg. I think it succeeded in meeting them...it met mine. Lucas's The Empire Strikes Back met the high expectations created by Star Wars. AI should meet expectations, a great film would. However, IMHO, with the work done by Spielberg lately, i'm not expecting much this time around. The fact of the matter is, expectations are irrelevant in determining the quality of a film.
-
Here are some other major trade publication reviews for
-
You can't say this movie is a failure because you think AI is just too confusing and weird. You can't blame Spielberg either. Remember that this movie is based on a short story so if your going to blame someone-- blame Aldiss for a lame idea. I just saw the film and have a completely different view point from the negative reviews that have been coming in. I was completely fascinated from beginning to end. I'm not saying it's one of the great film's but I sure can't get it out of my head and the more I think about it the more I want to see it again. I had several problems with the movie but they didn't arise from the screen play. I think Moriarty is wrong-- AI is well written. Hell the audience even clapped when the credits rolled and here's the funny thing! Hardly anyone got up either. They stayed until the last credit finished and then clapped again.
-
they were super-evolved a.i.'s... they were NOT aliens
-
They weren't aliens at all. It was our technology that evolved past human existance. They were digging us up as say the way we dig up cavemen. Just as we would want to see where we came from. They made mention several times during the movie that the human race was dying and would be replaced. "They made us to smart and too many". Remember not Aliens, technology and you might see the ending differently.
-
Jun 29, 2001 2:20:34 PM CDT
Would Have Been Kubrick's Final Masterpiece, Spielberg Turned on
by shaft9876
Just got back from seeing it. It was worth seeing, but I probably wouldn't sit through it twice. If you're a fan of Kubrick's films AI will piss you off, because Kubrick's basic vision is there, and you can see what it would have been, but Spielberg breaks out the cotton candy machine and coats the whole thing with fluffy crap. What would have been a career-capping synthesis of 2001, The Shining, and A Clockwork Orange turns out to be Blade Runner meets E.T. in Spielberg's hands. If Kubrick had lived to make it, I think AI would have been monumental on the level that 2001 was, but he didn't, and it isn't. Spielberg should never have gotten his hands on it.
-
This movie is for everyone who did not get that much out of "the mummy returns" or "Tomb Raider."
I read the reviews here from people that "wanted to love it" but ended up hating it. I read about the "three endings" and all the people checking their watches. Well, I was extremely upset about something that happened to me before the show, so I went in already *angry*...and two and half hours later I left in a totally different state of mind. (And I didn't check my watch once) The film is moving, and is ultimately about the power of love, why it endures, and how it sets us apart as a species. If you have never loved, and are cynical, or with a short attention span, you might not like this film. ****spoiler warning****** For those who are unhappy with the ending...here is why it works: David got his heaven. His quest was fulfilled...I believe the evolved A.I.s dowloanded his memories and information he stored...(David being himself a man-made vessel of love)...and then allowed him to shut himself down. Similar to the way dieing people will keep themselves alive until the see their loved ones and have closure in their life. I believe little david got his closure, and was allowed to...(as the narrator said)...for the first time in his life...go to the place of dreams. (meaning death to me) That's what I got out of it. But, like all great works of art, it is open to discussion and interpretation. The bear ruled, and the movie is really a wonderful and inspired piece of work. Go in with an open mind and let the movie take you where it takes you...Not everyone will get it, nor should they. -
NotaGeek again...something just occured to me that no one has seemed to touch on yet..."Teddy" was abandoned and discarded in much the same way David was. Only Teddy was not "imprinted" to love David. He made up his own "mind" to follow David, and look after him -- not the "human" child that he was originally given to. Sensing the abandonment of his previous "owner", he was seeking David's love and approval in a way not dissimilar to the way David was seeking the love and approval of his mother. Subtext in a side-kick. How's that for a summer movie?
-
Hello All,
I posted this on my website EclipseMagazine.com (http://www.eclipsemagazine.com) two weeks ago.
I was at the screening with all your "top" critics (Post, USAToday, Newsweek, etc...) in the country, because I'm a critic in Washington, DC. And I can tell you the people who were mentioned as having loved this movie were checking their watches 20 minutes into the film.
I wouldn't trust what any of them say. Quite often these mainstream critics don't print what they really think. I have conversations with them after the film and what they say during some of our group "what did you think" chats, do not match up with what they write later.
I remember Titanic, No one in that theater liked that movie, everyone thought it was too long, no story, etc. I picked up the papers three months later and those very same critics Loved it, called it the best film ever. Blah, Blah.
Well, here's my take on A.I.
I won't say that it sucks, but, no, actually, I will say it sucks. It blows chunks. I know every film critic in the world seems to have a hard on for Steven Spielberg, but really what was the last good movie he did, "Saving Private Ryan"? The first half hour of that was good but the rest of it sucked. I still can't sit through that entire movie. Luckily on DVD I can just skip ahead to the body parts exploding scenes.
Much like the director himself, A.I. is a pompous, waste of time. The movie tries so hard to make you care, but it is a empty shell. Hey Spielberg, stop preaching and make a movie that is actually FUUUUUN!!!!
The visual effects that everyone keeps talking about? Where were they? The first 40 minutes consisted of nothing but a dark, dank apartment. Ooooohh. Ahhhhhh. Wow, I ain't never seen anything like that before. The sets and lighting looked liked they were lifted straight from Aliens (good plot, horrible effects). And I don't mean the ship or alien effects, I'm talking about the scene where they were just in their living quarters.
Critics are calling Haley Joel Osment the best young actor ever. Calling him that is a slap in the face to all the previous child stars who had more range than this kid has shown me. Anyone remember Drew Barrymore, Anthony Michael Hall, ok I can't think of many people. But hell, even Jerry Mathers and the kid from The Adams Family showed more range than Osment.
Will someone please tell me why this kid is so popular? Is it because he's the perfect little blond, blue eye boy that every white moviegoer can relate to? In the Sixth Sense he barely said anything in that movie, and every time he did speak it was in monosyllables, and again, because what he had to say was sooooo important, he spoke, reeeeeeaaaaaaalllly slow, in a very soft voice, because hey, he was traumatized.
In A.I. he rehashes that same bland style and mannerisms, where we are supposed to care and go woo, woo, over him. The movie starts on a bland, boring note, and as far as I was concerned ended on one.
Why did I walk out? Didn't have the patience. I sincerely wanted to like this movie I stuck with it as long as I could. The only other movie I ever walked out on was Magnolia.
The red flag started with the opening scene, William Hurt, standing in dark classroom explaining the problems of robotics and how humans don't like them and mistreats them.
His brilliant idea, "let's make a robot that can love. One that can love unconditionally with every fiber of his being." Blech. Of course someone asks, "well can you make a robot that can love?" My response - "who gives a shit".
Hurt's response - "Making a robot that can love isn't the problem, it's whether humans can love a robot as though it was a real child. That's the problem." And of course a debate ensues about the human's responsibility to that robot, blah, blah, blah... I check my watch five minutes into this opening sequence it felt like 20 minutes.
To get his preachifying across, Speilberg has all the actors speak reaaaaaallllly, slooooooow, and quiet. You know you are watching a serious film when everyone whispers and speaks slowly. Hey they did it in The Sixth Sense (another film I despised), and everyone went slap nuts silly over it, so why not do it here?
Somehow they select these two bland people to be the recipients of the world's first robot child that can love unconditionally. Why this couple and not some one else? What process did the scientist use to pick this unstable company for this important experiment? The movie never explains it, oh I'm sure somewhere deep inside the press kit the information is there, but in the film itself, no explanation.
For most of the movie (again the 45 minutes that I saw) we are led to believe that their son died, or so I thought. The movie introduced David (Osment) into the household and I swear I think they spent 30 minutes just showing close ups of Osment. Osment watching the couple eat, watching the couple talk, etc. Ooooohhhhh, that was so exciting.
I can't believe people are praising the performances of the parents (the names escapes me) but they couldn't have picked two worst actors to play those roles. There was NO chemistry between them, the acting was retched, and again I felt like I was watching some sort of acting workshop class.
Then for some unknown reason, the marketing tie-end I guess, they introduce a talking Teddy Bear named Joe, I guess he was supposed to be the comic relief.
At that point I was ready to get the hell out of the theater, but I decided to stick with it a little while longer, and then the killer, they brought the couple's child back, one minute he's in a wheelchair. The very next he's walking and being a complete little spoiled brat at that point I got the hell out of the theater.
I don't blame David for wanting to drown the little bastard. -
if what you (notageek) said is true, which it probably was, then A.I. could be the SADEST movie i've ever seen. Teddy willingly stayed with david the whole movie, and because of his loyalty, he was trapped underwater for 2000 years! and how was he repaid for being such a great friend? why by being abandoned! if david trully found hapiness (well la-dee-freaking-da!) and died, then teddy, again was left alone, abandoned by his best friend, the one who kept him frozen for 2000 years! frankly, i was ok with david, but the caracter who i liked best was Teddy (as someone said before, he is the anti-jar-jar), and i really wouldn't mind watching a movie staring teddy, he ruled! anyhow, what i think speilberg should do with the movie is pull a counter-close encounters, with CEOT3K, spielberg took an amazing movie and worsened it with terrible scenes (inside the ship, i think that speaks for itself), now what he should do with A.I. is take an ok movie and take out all the shit (namely, the last half hour) i mean, can anyone argue that A.I. would be a great movie without that ending? i can see it now A.I.:the special edition (see the movie without the drek) if not, whe can just make an edit like the phantom edit
-
...who is the real geek? The geeks who need to "get over it" or the geeks who spend an hour writing a mile long "talk back" about a movie that they supossedly walked out of, and who can't even get the character's names right. The Bear was "teddy" not "joe". Gigalo Joe was the Jude Law character. It was a deep film -- and that pretty much shows how much attention you paid it. Now go write a two mile long talk back about the virtues of "Phantom Mencace."
-
Though some of you obviously didn't like the movie (I liked it (except the Flesh Fair scene), it seems like the general feeling is that Teddy was a great character and a great piece of special effects wizardry.
Now if we could just get Teddy to star in the Tomb Raider sequel... -
Jun 29, 2001 11:22:32 PM CDT
Don't listen to those who don't Like A.I. judge for yourself!!!
by rb65
I just saw A.I. & thought it was excellent. The cinematography was very good. It will be the best movie you see this summer, maybe all year. After reading some of the really negative messages here which say one thing and then after seeing the movie, coming to completely different conclusion. The ending wasn't bad like people said. That ending was better then the whole of Tomb Raider. All this ranting & raving about the ending or it was to long I think is just an excuse. I think the real reason some people didn't like the movie is because you have to reflect & ponder on what you seen on the screen as you leave the theater. It keeps you thinking for a while, And hours later your still thinking about some of the scenes in the movie.
Most Americans just don't like to think too much about a movie they see. That's why most American movies are cookie cutter Hollywood BS. So If you don't want to expand your intellect go see Tomb Raider. If you do see A.I., contemplate something worth reading before you post a message because so far most of the criticisms are without merit. JUST GO SEE IT AND DON'T LISTEN TO WHAT YOU HEAR OR READ!!!
-
So what is the point of that moon craft? I had that very question for a lot of things in that movie. Being cheeky, I joked that it was like the song from Arthur only to have my boyfriend believe me and agree. Then I checked the lyrics and it works, I suppose. Does the point of this movie boil down to a stupid Christopher Cross song? See for yourself.
-
I believe that David died at the flesh fair and that the end of the movie is his dying dream, not unlike the extended surreal dream Sam Lowrey has as he's being tortured at the end of Brazil. Everything from that point on is so surreal that it can't be taken literally. Hobby is already mass producing Davids, even though the David experiment is clearly a failure?? Cybernetix moves from New Jersey to Manhattan??? Why was The alterna-evil-David programmed to be such an a-hole??? He wasn't. The whole Third Act of this film is David's dream as his circuits shut down. Hobby reminds us repeatedly that David can dream. Repeatedly.
Anyway, that's what I made of it. Your mileage may vary. Just as an aside, I've seen better aliens in Pepsi commercials. Yikes. And thank god that one character picked up that one thing and held on to it for so long. (Spoken in code, just in case anyone who hasn't seen it ignored the spoiler warning.) -
I just saw the movie today and I liked it alot. I did'nt go in there expecting a Kubrick movie or a Spielberg movie. Just a movie.However,I'm puzzled by a cameo that I've been reading about on this site...Can someone please tell me where the hell was kid rock in this movie? I keep reading that he was in it. I recognized chris Rock,but Kid Rock? The only other possability that i can think of is that some of you fuckin nerds confused Ministry(a great band by the way) with the overexpossed Kid Rock.Come on you guys show some respect.
-
I suppose I liked it a lot, except that there was a lot that I didn't like. I definitely intend to see it again. I know that Kubrick was Kubrick, and not every film maker needs to spend ten years on every project. However I couldn't help but feel Spielberg sort of rushed this one. In particular the film lacks the visual vibrancy and detail that I hoped for, and Spielberg has clearly softened a lot of the edges out. The very last scene might have been my favourite, but it would have been so much better if only David had brought her a Bloody Mary instead of a coffee. And those Super A.I.'s at the end were as unimaginative as they could possibly have been. The film pays homage to '2001', but so does every science fiction film. Were this truly a Stanley Kubrick movie, it would be his worst. I wanted to believe the whole party line, the big guy wanted Spielberg. If only he had been alive, he could at least have given Stevie a good kick in the head once in a while. But it's definitely one of Spielbergs best, and much better than anything else I've been out to see recently (including your beloved 'Memento'.) I've got to go to work now, but I'll be back when the talkbacks heat up, and maybe I'll be feeling a bit more articulate then.
-
I think the AICN reviwers could take a cue from this AI review:
http://www.nypress.com/14/26/film/film2.cfm
-
There is more REAL emotion in the first section of this film that anything else released so far this summer.
Look at all the positive and negative reviews. People are passionate (one way or the other) about this film. It's making people think. People wouldn't post one way or the other unless it made an impression on them. This is the mark of a great film and I believe AI is a cult classic in the making.
Credit should be given to Spielberg for TRYING to tell a different kind of story than what's usual for summer fare. A lot of effort and thought went into this film. At least give it credit for having SOMETHING to say unlike all the other dreck this summer which shall remain nameless.
I LIKED the entire last section (Where the advanced AIs thaw out David) and everything that follows. If it would have ended after the ferris wheel, I would have been dissapointed.
Only thing I would change is that at the flesh fair... the crowd would have thrown their beanbags or whatever they were at the mechas. These mindless drones ;) were whipped into a crazed frenzy...and all of a sudden they become introspective? I doubt it.
So far, the best of the summer. BY FAR. GO SEE IT!
-
Jun 30, 2001 8:23:08 AM CDT
The Skeleton of a Very Good Kubrick Film Buried Under Heaps of S
by shaft9876
That's my view.
-
"The first European screening of Steven Spielberg's ``A.I. Artificial Intelligence'' failed to stir much enthusiasm among its audience of movie theater executives on Thursday night."
If executives don't like it, it MUST be good! :)
-
Jun 30, 2001 9:14:23 AM CDT
You can tell people are being stupid about Stanley Kubirck when
by revsam
And that's happened several times in this talk back. I for one loved the movie. And that's the tooth!
-
Jun 30, 2001 9:43:33 AM CDT
Think how many Krustyburgers $10 million could buy for the comic
by tonyloc
Friday's box office report:
http://www.showbizdata.com/contacts/dailybox.htm
Oh yeah: "Worst box office report ever!" -
I've loved this site for years now, but i've never written in talkback. I have to now - The way AICN has handled A.I. is awful. Harry is obviously off making his TV show in Hollywood, and his absence is obvious. This site is slowly being diluted, weakened and irrelevent. The 'scoops' aren't coming anymore. The passion and LOVE for film seems gone. Harry - your TV show may be your ticket to the big bucks, but it's bad business what you are doing... You are abandoning your target audience and neglecting what made you who you are. Don't let your staff run amuck and destroy this site. If you continue on this road, you and the AICN franchise you are trying to create will end up a has been, trendy, and pop drivel that was cool 3 years ago and now is old hat.
And for God sakes, for every one else, don't believe the backlash - GO SEE A.I - quickly. -
Jun 30, 2001 11:02:24 AM CDT
Just some thoughts on why no one here knows what Kubrick would o
by fenderman18
perhaps the late, great Stanley Kubrick and the also-great Stephen Spielberg would rather us watch this movie and review it on the artistic and emotional merit that it deserves rather than throwing in our own two cents on why they each participated in it and how the other screwed it all up. i cant help but wonder how people can criticize "A.I." for "not being the way Kubrick intended". What do you know? "A.I." is a movie by Stephen Spielberg that, rather remarkably, avoids pretty much all the trademarks that the director usually associates with himself. Thus maybe it would be better to look at "A.I." for what it is, rather than who made it and why. SIDENOTE: Kubrick and Spielberg are both responsible for some of the greatest films in American history. Both are INDISPUTABLE geniuses at their craft, and BOTH deserve respect from ANYONE claiming to be a fan of cinema. The only, and I mean ONLY significant differences in their respective resumes is that Kubrick never made a movie that was merely average. Of course, Kubrick only made a third of the number of films that Spielberg has. Just something to think about next time you are too afraid of admitting that 'emotional value' and 'sentimental crap' are not one and the same.
-
The book by George Harrison would've made a less boring AI movie.
-
Jun 30, 2001 1:30:08 PM CDT
Maybe the robots in the future were lying to David out of compas
by skynet5000
This wasn't obvious to me at first, but then I looked at the perspective of the robots from 2000 years in the future. To these extremely sophisticated robots, David was a child... the beginning of their "race". They could not create the memories of David's mother so they used David's memories instead. That's why they explained to David that she would basically only have memories of him and told him not to speak of others she loved under the pretense that this would upset her. The problem with their plan was that David would soon figure this out, so their solution was to tell him she could only live for a day. Why else would a day have such "cosmic significance"? The answer is that it doesn't --- it's just the amount of time the robots thought that David could enjoy his dream come true without realizing that it was only a dream that was entirely manufactured by these futuristic robots. The movie's major theme was whether a human could really care for a robot which truly loved them. Every character, including David's mother ultimately showed that they could not. The ending showed that these robots did really care for David right from the start because he is one of "their kind" which simply points out that it is a sad reality that it is generally easier to love your own kind than another not matter how great the illusion. Considering all this, I found the ending of the movie to be brilliant and can't believe that anyone would have wanted the movie to end with David's haunting chant while trapped under the Ferris wheel. If you really want that to be the ending, I dare you to never watch what comes after that scene when you buy the video or DVD --- I'd bet money that you couldn't do it and even more money that you'd at least find some aspect of the ending enchanting.
-
I loved this movie...up until the end. Every friend of mine who has seen this movie hates it. I don't know why I like it, but I do. Yeah, people in the theatre didn't get the movie and started laughing. Yeah, no one understood the "aliens" were really evolved mecha. On the flipside, yeah, the "technobabble" (we can bring her back but the space-time...) and the exposition were too much. All I know is that this movie really made me think. More than even Memento did. And all I know is that I can appreciate a film that'll at least try and make me do that.
- I saw David as being ideally human; like before Adam biting the apple. And I just saw him as a metaphor for how we as humans search for our "creator" and our "purpose."
Just for a frame of reference, I defended Eyes Wide Shut to my friends, and I just finished "Kissing in Manhattan" as recommended by Mort. Eveyone needs to read this book.
Mojo -
Jun 30, 2001 2:59:16 PM CDT
A.I.'s journey down the "Kubrick trail": My review of A.I.
by cooldan989
I just got back from Hoyts after seeing A.I., and boy, was I surprised. It was a lot different than I thought it would be, but in a good way, despite the fact the whole Evan Chan thing really IS a marketing ploy instead of a subplot. The names "Evan Chan" and "Jeanine Salla" don't appear even ONCE in the movie. If the movie were bad, I'd feel cheated by this marketing ploy, but somehow, I don't. Reviewing this movie involves observing how well this movie blazes the "Kubrick trail", the trail that Steven Spielberg is trying to navigate in the form of this movie. Here is my take on just how well he did. The beginning of the movie gets Steven on the right start down the trail, because it's very well-crafted, and the right mix of drama and suspense. (You'll know what I'm talking about when you see the movie.) The suspense mostly involves what happens when David settles in with the Swinton family. And I'll say it right now: some of it is not pretty. By this, I am talking about how the Swintons' flesh-and-blood son, Martin, is influencing David to make Martin's parents think David has gone haywire, completley by accident. This prompts Martin's parents to abandon David in the woods, after an emotional parting scene. After that, comes the middle of Steven's journey down the Kubrick trail. This is where he gets lost. The middle of this movie is mostly an unnecessary innuendo-fest, with a too-close-for-comfort look at Gigolo Joe's career, the "Flesh fair", and everything in between. Hell, even Chris Rock cameos in this part, something Stanley Kubrick would probably not appreciate. I must admit this part is necessary for the movie to function properly, but Spielberg didn't have to go this far. After this part, there is a brief moment where the movie turns, well, stupid, which includes a very unnecessarily cartoony visit to the "Dr. Know" machine, to help David through his journey. But after this, Steven somehow gets back on the trail. And, during the ending, Steven blazes the rest of it with flying colors. Mark my words: only tough-as-nails truckers won't be touched by this marvelous ending that will make you shed tears of sorrow, and then joy, for David Swinton. (By the way, Haley Joel Osment is PHENOMENAL playing this character. I smell an Oscar coming his way already...). So, to end this review, Steven didn't blaze the Kubrick trail as well as one would think, but he blazed it none the less, thanks to a creative beginning and a powerhouse ending, it's just the middle that was his one mistake.
-
See-- I get the feeling that Jeff feels the same way a lot of the people who didn't like AI feel.. They can't accept David and they feel no emotion for the character and when the end comes they don't really care what happens to him.. I think the majority of average film goers will feel this way and just say that the film sucked because they probably didn't understand it or even want to for that matter...I still think it's a fantastic movie and I'm ready to see it again!
-
Jun 30, 2001 3:06:55 PM CDT
A.I. - I saw, I loved !! Movie Snobs and pooh pooh artists pl
by russman
Folks!!! Were you watching the same movie as I was? It was beautiful. Brought tears to my eyes. I understood it, didn't you? This was good science fiction. It was also a wonderful fairy tale. It's about the human desire to be love manifested in the form of a robot so innocent that he doesn't understand who or what he is or that a fairy tale is make-believe and as unreal as he is. I sit here and read all of these snide "movie snob" comments about the movi and I'm in awe, at how many emotionally stabe, and well adjusted and loved people who are out there. I mean, I only wish that I was so loved and cared for. I wish that I didn't identify with David. You people are lucky. As for the ending.... I LOVED IT!!! They told a story about his JOURNEY. The oppertaive word is JOURNEY. A beginning a middle and an END. Think of our lives. We become aware of our existance without remember being born, we live and then we die. Thus is the life of David. This movie doesn't need to end early, to do that would be a faux "artistic" cop out . A bullshit ending where the writer says - "well I don't know what to do next, so I'll just end it here and leave it to the audience's immagination" I feel cheated when a movie does this. I say, let the writer use his immagination and tell us the story. Hate to break it to you folks, but long after we're dead, the earth will still turn and glide around the sun (until the sun goes nova). David was progamed to love and to be loved. Monica's rejection of him throws him in a tail spin. He doesn't know what he did to deserve her rejection. And all he wants to do is to regain her love and to do anything he needs to in order to get it. And he does. He clings onto a fairy tale, something any human being knows is just a story and not true beyond the lesson that the tale teaches, and pursues it to the end of the earth. Once you can accept that David may have a super long power source or that his will to stay opperational until he gets his wish - his dream to have Monica's love, THEN you can understand that the story can go on. It can carry out until 2,000 years in the future when the human race has died and the world has been frozen over and is being dug up by an advanced alien race of beings. Remember the opperative word? JOURNEY. David still has the same wish and desire... to gain the love of his mommy. And the most beautiful part of the movie is when he receives that love from her. That when all is said and done, even is she is just a DNA recreation of Monica she gives him the answer that he's been waiting for all of his life - she loves him and always had loved him. And with those few words, his purpose in life, what he's been programmed to do, to love and be loved, is at at long last fulfilled and realized - and now he can rest and power down. Beginning, Middle, End. Roll your eyes and sigh all you want, you didn't get it - and in a way that's good and in another way that's too bad because you missed out on a very sweet, emotional story.
-
It seems strange to me that folks are writing A.I. off as cheesy and sentimental, when the film itself is merely using these conventions to deconstruct them. A.I. is one of the most bleak, misanthropic pictures ever made; all the characters are so driven by a psychotic (and often preprogrammed) sense of need that they utterly disregard the emotions (and lives) of those around them entirely ("keep me safe"). The film is littered with examples. The 'imprinting' is a disturbingly selfish action, and it's played off as if it were 'touching.' The Gepetto character is only interested in mass marketing him to fill the void his dead son left. And the ending (the 2000 years proving David's madness) serves as a direct criticism of Spielberg's own dependance on deux-ex-machina endings - each time you think he's saved, he is further destroyed - and ultimately, destroying the myth of the Mother to begin with (forshadowed by the crumbling, frozen Blue Fairy), David invoking her for his own convenience simply to satisfy his own driving, inhuman need, even if it's only for a mayfly-like day. "And it was the happiest day of his life." That's nice if he died, but he doesn't - he's left to live forever alone. He has become a real boy in a pointless and infinitely lonely nightmare. Kubrick inspired Spielberg to make a purely anti-Spielberg film, something profoundly more cold and devoid of hope than even Kubrick has brought us previously. Kubrick could not have directed this, people would have known he was up to something. By using Spielberg as the front man, we are lulled into a sucker-punch. Sadly, most reviewers shut down the moment the schmaltz showed up, without waiting to see what it was used for. No wonder they were confused by this brutal, deconstructionist piece - they were to busy trying to ignore it.
-
Spielberg not Kubrick
Awe-inspiring fairy tale
Teddy sounds like HAL
-
A.I. was great. The only thing missing from the movie that would have made it perfect was The Iron Giant. Man, if The Iron Giant had of been in this movie, it would've been perfect. I mean, he's a hundred-foot tall metal GIANT! Every movie needs one of those... if The Iron Giant had of been in A.I., cinematic perfection would have finally been attained after a century of trial and error. The Iron Giant is strong... he can lift whole cars off the ground without even trying. The Iron Giant is smart... he can figure out complex mathematical equations in his head! The Iron Giant is kind... he saved all those people in that small town, even though they didn't like him very much. If David from A.I. had a friend like The Iron Giant, he wouldn't need anybody else, because The Iron Giant is the best hundred-foot tall robot there has ever been. People can debate the comparative genius of Kubrick and Speilberg, but both fail in having never cast The Iron Giant in a single film! What's up with that?
-
We never see David alone and suffereing. The last thing we see is him snuggling with his Mommy. If Spielberg were really pushing a bleak ending he would've shown the mother disappearing and David's anguish. Spielberg tried cramming a happy ending down our throats with the most contrived, sentimental crap I've seen him do since The Twilight Zone Kick The Can segment. People seem to want to give this movie a passing grade because long stretches of it are brilliant, and we so rarely see anything approaching that these days we swoon every time we do. But the movie as a whole just does not work. It showcases the absolute best and absolute worst of Spielberg as a filmmaker (and he's made some of my favorite movies of all time).
-
AI is a movie that makes you think about emotion programming. The humans in the movie are all programmed by emotions (hate, anger, love, understanding) and they build a robot who they say is the first robot programmed to love. This child is not the first robot programmed to love, he seems to be the first robot programmed to believe in love. He believes in love so much that when his mother starts hating him because he isn't a real boy, the robot child goes on a journey to become a real boy. He heard the pinocchio story about how a blue fairy turns a wooden boy into a real boy. So he goes on a journey to find the blue fairy so she can turn him into a real boy.
He eventually finds the blue fairy. But it is just a statue of a blue fairy from a pinocchio ride at a carnival. He gets in front of the blue fairy statue and keeps asking the blue fairy to make him a real boy. She never turns him into a real boy but he keeps asking her over and over again, "Please make me a real live boy, Please make me a real live boy." The narrator of the story starts explaining that days went by and years went by and he still kept asking her.
Right when you think the movie is about to end right there, it goes off into another direction. Since many years have passed by and humanity has become extinct, we see an alien ship flying into the blue fairy scene. These aliens are from a very technologically advanced world. They find the robot child and they activate him with their mental powers. The aliens begin to gather the robots memory data. The aliens learn from this robot childs memory and they take the robot child with them to their world.
The robot child happens to be the only existing memory of humanity. The aliens learn from the robots memory and they know that he is a robot who wants to become a real boy. The aliens grant his wishes, by creating a simulated environment. These aliens can create simulated worlds since they are very highly advanced with technology. They take the data from the robot childs memory and put his memory into the mind of a real boy with real flesh. This all takes place in the simulated environment. We know that he has real flesh because a tear comes out of his eye at the end of the film. And the aliens are observing the simulated environment. The aliens even recreate the blue fairy in the simulated environment and allow the robot child to speak to the blue fairy. I won't tell you every detail about the movie, but this is the basic plotline and by the end of the film, the robot boy is no longer a robot. He has flesh and is living in a simulated environment created by the aliens. He goes to sleep at the end of the film and the narrator talks about how he dreams like a real boy.
Watching this movie, I realized that the humans were just another form of artificial intelligence. The only difference between humans and robots is that robots have wires & run on electricity and humans have veins & run on blood. They are both programmable. The humans have created their own "religion of emotions" and when they program a robot with the same "religion of emotions" the robot goes off and believes anything. Sounds similar to humans, some humans believe anything. The humans failed to create the perfect human that they always dreamed of creating. To program a robot that would reflect the idea of a perfect human, the robot would have to be programmed with a specific order. This robot was not programmed with a specific order, he was programmed to believe in anything that he felt was right for him. Again, sounds very similar to the average human.
Each human is the self programmer of his own mind, and that is what this robot child has become. He self programs himself to believe that the blue fairy will make him real and as the robot intakes more and more incoming data, he starts becoming self-aware of what he actually is and the fact that some humans do not like robots. He quickly understands hate and love, repelling and attracting. He feels like attracting, and many of his efforts at attracting fail because he starts being viewed as an imperfect child in the eyes of his mother. All he ever wanted was to be loved by his mother. To hear the words: "I love you" coming back from his mother, that was the motivation that drived him to go on a journey to become real. Maybe his creators programmed him to respond to the words "I love you" or maybe he programmed himself to become satisfied by hearing "I love you." It seems like he got lost in the idea of love. Being rejected made him feel like an imperfect robot boy, and being accepted made him feel like a perfect real boy. It was all about him feeling accepted. By the end of the film, he was accepted.
The idea of feeling accepted is not new to us humans. How many women with small breasts get plastic surgery to have bigger breasts. How many guys lift weights to achieve the perfect body. How many people are criticized for looking wierd or for not looking like a perfect human. Peoples eyes are constantly scanning for perfection and every time someone is made to feel imperfect, it causes them to go on a journey to reach perfection. This happens to some people, of course not all people strive to become the popluar-known vision of the perfect human. The only one who could truly make himself feel real was himself. The only one who can make you feel already perfect is yourself. But as life moves along, certain people will constantly feel the pressure to be perfect in the eyes of other humans. The rest already feel comfortable with their self.
Steve
www.MindPowerPeople.com
To make it easier for average movie audiences to understand, there could have been a film made called A.T. - Artificial Tits. It's about a blonde woman who has a boyfriend who likes big tits, but she has little tits and she's been using socks in her braw to give the appearance of big tits. So he drops her off in Beverly Hills and she goes on a search to find the doctor who will give her nice looking artificial tits. But they ran out of silicone in beverly hills, and she sits on the sidewalk crying. Then a really well known porn producer sees her on the sidewalk and gives her a porn movie contract. And he knows a guy who can give her nice looking artificial tits. By the end of the movie she has her nice tits and she is the biggest porn star in the world. -
...but, to me, that was the beauty of it. The movie does nothing direct to tell you how to read it, it leaves the sentiment in its own frame - but every scene gives you the recipe for its own deconstruction: after all, you know she dies, you know this was the 'happiest day,' and you know he doesn't die either. Since you just saw him live for 2000 years, we can assume that he lasts pointlessly after that ad infinitum. It's the same kind gag as Ben Kingsly's blithe read of "...and so the human race died out and..." or the burnt-out-bulb versions of the Close Encounters aliens. In any case, I do agree that the movie is far from flawless, I just wish folks wouldn't write it off out of spite for Spielberg. I can understand; I've been dissatisfied with almost everything he's done since E.T. - but people are missing some of the true greatness of this film simply because they a raring to bite into him - imagine how satified they'd feel if they only would realize he agrees with them?
-
This story tells many ***SECRETS ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS*** so it might not be a good idea to read it unless you're acquainted with David and Teddy and all the rest.
Once upon a time, I came to a place that was unlike any other. The lights in the place went dark, and I saw people I came to love so quickly... I saw people whose hurt went beyond description. I saw desperation and love and determination. I saw human beings there, at their best and at their worst. The magic of the place and the people brought me to tears. How I remember them; was it so long ago that we shared, that they told their stories to me? David ... how I wept for you and cared about what would happen to you; you really proved to be unique in all the universe; you aren't just some supertoy. Teddy ... you funny, fat, roly-poly bear; you're not so stupid at all, no matter what Martin said at the time. Martin, why were you so jealous? Monica, why did you have to leave him? Dr. Hobby, did you love your son? Did you love David? What a world you all lived in then, and what a world you live in now, David and Teddy! David, you got your wish and I was so happy for you. Why did people want to see you stay under that Ferris Wheel? I don't know; maybe I'll never know. Maybe it's just a secret of how people are that they can be so cruel sometimes. Maybe that's why the humans around you doomed themselves and were so violent to you, so gaudy and harsh and mean in the delight they took over the destruction of Mecha. That's what doomed them, I think. That's why the Mecha were there to lift up the world when the human genius gave way to cruelty, when the tiniest detail became more important than the joy of living. I see it all the time, David, even now. You've never heard this story, I don't think, but it is the story of a place called AI'CN. You might think it has something to do with Artificial Intelligence, but too often it has to do more with the first than with the second, with people who cannot find beauty but only condemnation in anything they do. Ah, but you wouldn't believe me about such a world, any more, would you, David? These people, the people of AI'CN, wanted a different world for the future. They didn't want to see such happiness as you found. They can't understand the strings that tie all people together. They wanted you to stay at the bottom of the ocean forever. That would have made them happy, because many of them do not know how to love. They lost that gift when they tried to hold on to their place in the universe too long, and couldn't give up the things you willingly handed over in order to become a part of real life. They had doorways to see into your world, and they said it lacked cruelty, lacked darkness, lacked sorrow. Did they see how you hurt inside, David? Did they see how you and fat little Teddy and even Joe tried so hard to become more than what people thought you could ever hope to be? I think they were blind to anything real, David, and that's why they couldn't see. They believed in a powerful force called COOL, a force that doesn't really exist. They spent all their time and energy crumbling to dust as they vainly searched the universe to find COOL, and they never really found it. They found only emptiness, because the one thing they knew about COOL was that it never could be found in the arms of another person, that it was never anywhere to be had ... it was a fleeting illusionary thing that vanished as soon as it was half-tasted. David, you are not cool. You are real. And when the Blue Fairy came to you and granted your wish, I clapped. -
Did no one twig to the rather obvious fact that these weren't aliens at all? The memory-download, the "brilliance of humans must be preserved", the "you are unique, you actually lived with humans!" all lead me to surmise David was rescued by advanced (evolved) Mecha. Anyone?
-
Self - indulgent, politically correct, psuedo intellectual nonsense. 3 wheeled cars? Neon cities ? Super advanced robots and no one thought of the food thing? Is this the best ideas they could come up with? Who was science advisor on this thing - Wavt Gravy? Please hire some engineers and scientist who know what they are talking about- like , say Arthur C Clarke- who, by the way, does not buy into catstrophic global warming or flooding cities. And like wow, the whole pinnochio metaphor that was sooo heavy man. I think I got it, but hammer my head again just in case. It looked like this stinker was designed to appeal to stoned,smug, PC 18 year old first year Berkely students. This thing was about as deep as a wading pool.
Go back and watch 2001. See a viable and believable vision of the future made by a filmmaker who was smart enough to rely on a true scientist who knew what he was talking about. -
To all you clueless people out there they guys at the end ARE NOT ALIENS! Let's repeat that...they ARE NOT ALIENS! They are Mecha 2000 years advanced from the time of the movie. Remember when Joe said humanity hates the mechas because when humanity is gone all that will be left are the mechas...
-
After just seeing the horrible Pinnochio-Blade Runner-D.A.R.Y.L.(does anybody remember the 80s look at virtually the same subject?) hybrid I am nauseous. I could have saved some money by simply dropping acid and then watching Pinnochio and...CLOSE ENCOUNTERS OF THE THIRD KIND!!?? It would have had a more enjoyable and thought provoking way to spend two hours.
-
In his research for '2001', Kubrick came to speak on a level with the world's top astrophysicists and to intimidate the hell out of Clarke. I sort of doubt that Spielberg put that kind of research into this film. Understand that I liked it a lot, and it grows on me the more I think about it, and I look forward to seeing it again. However, it seemed a little careless at many points, slapped together. The more I think about it, the more I like the flesh fair sequence, a neat summation of the worst of Americana, filled with blackly intriguing implication in the little girls response to David. There's a thinly disguised nastiness about the whole film, particularly in the awesome final scene. What didn't I like? Dr Know, Chris Rock, the climax of the Flesh Fair, the ultimately derivative Super Mecchas at the ending, the underuse of Teddy, a few other things. I wonder at what might have been had Kubrick lived to produce and/or direct 'A.I.'. I don't think it would have been this. As it stands, it's the worst 'Stanley Kubrick' movie ever, or at least since 'Fear and Desire'. But it is one of Spielberg's best, and it's pretty damned good, as I said before it's much better than 'Memento'.
-
I don't care if they were aliens, mecha, or giant men made of creamcheese. The ending was absurd.
The characters in this movie are shallow and poorly scripted.
For example, first Monica is shocked at the idea of having a mecha child in their home, then she signs the contract, and then she says the seven imprinting words. All this in the span of about 10 minutes, with no explanation whatsoever for her change of heart.
And Henry starts out being keen on the idea of a mecha child, then all of a sudden he's trying to convince her they should get rid of him.
Poor storytelling.
Just because David did a couple of stupid things, they get rid of him? He was obviously terrified when he fell into the pool with Martin, and Monica should have knwn he was acting out Pinocchio when he cut off her hair.
What, they didn't anticipate any problems whatsoever? Maybe she should have thought about this before saying the seven words.
Taken separately, these inconsistencies, illogical behaviors, etc. don't ruin the movie, but when you add them up, it really hurts the film.
Although as I mentioned in another post, this movie has other much bigger problems. -
Just an FYI...I was in Dallas with the ringing cell phone guy, and I wanted to rip his head off.
I thought the film was cool, and felt like I needed a second viewing to digest. A Kubrick/Spielberg film needs time to digest IMHO. The last damn thing I needed was some incosiderate assholes cell phone ringing at the final moment. Even if you aren't into the film you should have wanted to kill him. It's people like him who ruin the expierence for everyone.
-
That movie sucked! I think my butt is bruised from shifting so many times..seriously..I had problems sitting down in the car when we left the theatre. Anyway it sucked so bad. I hated that movie..very few scenes caught and kept my attention. The ending was horrid..the begining was horrid..and the middle was alright. DONT WATCH IT RENT IT
-
i just got back from treating my parents to a night at the movies to watch a.i.(cause my dad's been dying to see it for like 2 monthes). i must say i thought it was quite brilliant. it started off kind of slow in my opinion, and i think the audience i was with kind of felt it at little too but when that teddy first appeared , that was it guys, our whole audience fell in love with it. i did. from there on it, ai took us on a magic carpet ride. jude law was hiliorious. i mean his whole opening scene is truly classic. then you have the never seen them coming cameos from robin willaims, chris rock,and kid rock! wow! top that off with anthony hopkins narrarating and you have some truly surprising cameos. the fx were magnificent. teddy stands out as a great character i think to everyone.
some other people here are right....DON'T TAKE YOUR KIDS! seriously, they really didn't advertise this film correctly. THIS IS NOT FOR KIDS! i can't stress that enough. this movie is dark and truly shocking at times. one of the harder pg13 movies i've ever seen.
in closing great film. however i think the film's audience will die down due to the complete weirdness of this film. i bet people were going in there saying,"oooh, time for some summer shit blowing up action". and those who didn't get that, will be sorely dissapointed. -
Parts of AI reeked so bad that my vomit wanted to throw up. First, I'm sure glad the production designer from the third batman movie had some extra neon lights, because they made the flesh fair sequence extra sucky. Also, when the advanced mechas that looked like T2000s gone bad started babbling about the space time continuim, I wanted do violence to people around me. After being exposed to this steaming pile of celluloid manure, my life has ceased to have meaning.
-
Even after seeing A.I. thurs. night, I'm still having dreams about it. In ways that I hadn't expected, due in some measure to All the talkbacks, the movie haunts me. That said, all u folks should check out the review over at Coming Attractions by Patrick Sauriol (especially MORIARTY and A. DuPont). His review is well put and he nails the scene that truly haunts me, as it seems to haunt him; the very final scene b4 fade out as David lies with Monica and Teddy climbs onto the bed and sits at the edge staring onto them. To me, there is just something about Teddy(a character I really enjoyed and whose voice and reason did remind me of HAL-but not gone haywire), just sitting there...it came so close to touching me, but was so unsettling...Even typing this I become still and just ponder that moment. This movie, to me if no one else, appears to be one that will just grow on u over time. I hate to be one of those folks that say something like this on a films opening weekend, but this flick already feel like a classic.
-
If you ignore the small details, this film is a great commentary on what is wrong with human nature. While watching this film, I was never compelled with the questions of "what makes a good robot?" or "why aren't humans not focusing on this whole global warming issue that threatens their existence?" Why? Because, we, as humans, tend to let our emotions lead us. Despite our intelligence, our ability to learn,...you, we use emotional cues to capture our attention, to lead us blindly through life. There have been many moments in the history of the world where humans have hated what they do not understand. About sixty-five years ago, millions of Jews were slaughtered in the name of racial purity. We look back at this and think to ourselve, "What a shameful act, how could something like that ever have happened?" Yet, it did, and it took African Americans a hell of a long time to reach equal standards that still aren't being met in today's America. We fear what is not like us. This is essential to A.I. David is a machine, and because he only appears to be human, "orga" only fear him more. Modern psychology is still not fully capable of unlocking the mysteries of the human brain. Why do we love? What do we love? Can love be defined? There are no answers to any of these questions. Love is a hypothetical construct, never to be fully defined, yet we as humans we know love when we find it. This is essential for David, and the last act is what really makes the movie pay off. David is aware of the notion of love, yet he has never experienced it. The last experience with his mother, the final day, he finally feels loves, he understands what it feels like to be loved.
Overall, Spielberg has made an enormous picture. We as humans, are far too cynical and cold when it comes to defining the unexplained. We would much rather turn our heads and look the other way than comes to grips with whatever it is that stands directly in front of us. The breakdown of nuclear families, the uneven balance between commerce and government...and a list of other modern day issues that all come into play. With this film, perhaps Spielberg is forcing us to take a look at these issues now, rather than wait for the consequences of the future. -
People have been critical of the AICN reviews, but I think most of them got it right. This movie is a disappointment, not that i had much expectations for it in the first place. The reviews on this site have accurately pointed out how the movie doesn't work as science fiction. There are too many inconsistencies. The "science" part is sacrificed by the writer to blatantly manipulate and direct the story where he wanted it to go. Yet, the movie seems to start in a way that sets a tone for a science fiction story. The opening scene is a good example of what's wrong with the entire movie. There is too much explaining to the audience. The story should speak for itself. The question of how you program a mecha to love is never even attempted to be explained. Instead, a ridiculous question arises out of nowhere, that somehow a more important question is can humans love a robot programmed to unconditionally love. How is that a more important question? How was it even relevant to what Hurt's character was talking about. How did that question logically follow? Well, it didn't. But it helped set up the story we were about to see. It's really a stupid question. Of course humans can love it, we have emotions. What also annoyed me was Hurt's ridiculous answer, a little jab at religion, something fashionable to do in movies today, and occurs more than once in this film. The lady says something like, you didn't answer my question, can humans love back what they created to love them. Hurt replies that it is an important question since time began, when God created Adam. I guess that implies the question if God really loves us.The point is, the dialogue didn't fit. It becomes obvious later it was only meant to kind of explain the story to the audience. There just seems to an infinite amount of more relevant questions that should have followed the brief explanation Hurt's character give of how he programmed the robot to love. Using the words neurons and imprint doesn't cut it. When you imprint something, instinct is the result not true emotion. Imprinting implies not really loving. Yet no one questioned this. No one questioned why David would be given only the ability to love, and not other emotions. Why program a single emotion? Wouldn't it make more sense to program it to learn how to love, to learn how to have emotions, instead of just to just directly program the single emotion of love in him, where he can only be imprinted to love one person? No, instead, we must accept that Hurt's character just stuck a love chip in him with some neuron juice and he's ready to go. Well at least David acted more accurately as an imprinted robot with instinct rather than one magically programmed to love. But to me that made him an unsympathetic character. He love in an obsessive way, like a trained, or imprinted dog, in an instintual way, not a human way. He looks at his mother as more of an object that he must "love", not valuing anyone or anything else he comes into contact with. This is best illustrated when he beats the identical model of himself, that never provoked him. Was David programmed to love and be retarded? Was he programmed to be a little brat too? I think this is the major reason many seem to hate the ending. We don't really care for this little brat who keeps saying he wants his mother's love, but we never really buy that he understands what he seeks.Anyway, many are trying to defend this film saying it was meant to be a fantasy. Well, even stories of fantasy have to be logical within the world of the story. In addition, fantasy usually involves the supernatural, occurences beyond the physical world. AI scoffs at the possibity of such occurences, and since advanced AI's save him, nothing supernatural happens in this film. Yet, we have to make a great leap of faith that such intelligence could ever really exist. The new religion of science is becoming more and more obvious. The fact of the matter is, to this day, science hasn't even come close to understanding how the human mind works, resulting in many leading scientists to believe that the end of science is approaching. Science will not be relevant in the new questions that arise, that go beyond nature and the physical.
-
If they weren't aliens, then Why Oh Why did Spielberg choose to make them look like your Stereotypical Alien? Either they are in fact aliens, or someone dumb works in the art department. Also, word on the no talking. That would have made the ending much more meaningful. As in, more than very little. HJ did a good job; Jude was great; it was pretty. blah. I actually did think the end was a reconstructed environment at first, because of all that soporific lighting. Gosh! It was ok.
-
The real problem is they couldn't decide on an ending. They figured the best way to please everyone was to load all the possible endings, including the sucky ones, into the barrel with some black powder and fire them all at the audience. Something will connect, right?
Instead of a religious or non-religious ending, we get varying degrees in the various endings, ditto on the tearjerk factor. The real ending, in my humble opinion, is David destroying the lookalike robot. The Cain kills Abel angle. He was programmed to love, but he managed to hate and kill. He's human at that point. Touch on that and roll credits. -
Jul 01, 2001 12:24:24 AM CDT
What Was So Wrong With What The Humans Were Doing At The Flesh F
by r_nathan
Someone compared the people who didn't like the film with the humans at the flesh fair. Which brings up the question - was there anything wrong with what the humans were doing at the flesh fair (other than that they were wasting their time and money). We were told many times that David was the first robot who could love. This implies he was the first robot who could actually feel any emotion, since the Sam Robards character implies David's ability to love would give him the ability to hate. So if no robot, other than David, had the ability to feel any emotion, destroying them at the flesh fair was not really any different from junking an old appliance. THEY WEREN'T SUPPOSED TO HAVE ANY FEELINGS!!! THAT WAS THE WHOLE POINT OF DAVID!!! But according to some of the fans, I'm doing something horrible by expecting this film to make any sense.
-
don't deserve any response, I feel compelled in any case.
First off, any serious critic (not claiming that you are, but for the sake of argument) that has to resort to summing up a movie as "it sucks" immediately loses all credibility since you're already tipping your hand as to the amount of intelligence (or lack thereof) which your article will be imbued.
For example:
"Much like the director himself, A.I. is a pompous, waste of time."
You're a writer? Or just posing as one? No comma after the "pompous" dear.
"Wow, I ain't never seen anything like that before."
Again, you claim to be a writer?
"The visual effects that everyone keeps talking about? Where were they?"
Did someone take a nappy during the final oh... three quarters of the movie?
"I sincerely wanted to like this movie I stuck with it as long as I could."
I sincerely hope you don't get paid for any of the "writing" that you do.
"Why this couple and not some one else? What process did the scientist use to pick this unstable company for this important experiment? The movie never explains it, oh I'm sure somewhere deep inside the press kit the information is there, but in the film itself, no explanation."
Again I see that we took naptime during the movie. There was a scene in which they briefly alluded to the qualifying factors for the experiment, loyalty to the company was one. They also mentioned their unique situation with having lost a child as being an additional factor.
"For most of the movie (again the 45 minutes that I saw) we are led to believe that their son died, or so I thought."
Again, moron by choice or default? Does it make any sense to cryogenically freeze an already dead human being?
"Then for some unknown reason, the marketing tie-end I guess, they introduce a talking Teddy Bear named Joe, I guess he was supposed to be the comic relief."
... The teddy bear's name was Teddy, moron.
"At that point I was ready to get the hell out of the theater, but I decided to stick with it a little while longer, and then the killer, they brought the couple's child back, one minute he's in a wheelchair. The very next he's walking and being a complete little spoiled brat..."
It's called recuperation, and he was wearing some sort of braces for his legs as well. Really, it's one thing to waste space on this website with your incoherent and plainly moronic criticism of a movie that is not without faults--but at the least should be spared of your dribble--but to lie to us as well with acting as if you rub elbows with "all your 'top' critics" every day? Please. -
Whenever I seen Davy and Teddy it reminded me of that old claymation show called "Davy And Goliath". Teddy is cleary the frontrunner with the Oscar
-
I hope this is the last time Spielberg tries to channel a dead friend's movie.
I found myself wishing David had hooked up with Roy Batty instead of Gigolo Joe before reaching his maker so that he could be taught a lesson about the folly of playing God.
Visually stunning, well acted, but it just left me feeling indifferent.
And Spielberg is my idol so what else can I say... -
A very ambitious movie. There are a few problems. The scientists not anticipating that a child that doen't eat or sleep would create an unsettling feeling in the parents is a little hard to believe. Professor Hobby was short-sighted and shallow but he probably would have had some psychologists on staff to help him out with a few things like that. I thought the end was interesting. The movie asks questions that have and will always be asked in science fiction. What are we? At what point to we stop the division between human and machine and why? Is it just behavior and appearance? Aren't we just chemicals and electricity as well? Or is there more? What is Love? What forms does it come in? If the chemical compositions and neuronal pathways of humans were eventually perfectly mapped and could be re-created, what woud be the difference between building a human and giving birth to one? Could artificial beings learn to build and improve themselves to a point where they become beings that eventually become kinder and more empathic than humans? In Roger Ebert's review he talks about the difference between human and machines and basically says they're just different. Why? Because they're machines. What?!He says the movie can't answer the questions it asks. At least it's asking.
-
Where the movie should've ended is with poor Teddy totally losing it with being trapped inside the amphibicopter for 2,000 years having to listen to David wish and wish and wish...to the Blue Fairy to be a real boy. Spielberg should've had Teddy desperately trying to open the doors around the fifth day or so - much better to be swept away into the ocean than to listen to a virtual eternity of this crazy ass robot. And for defenders of A.I. who'd care to defend this as thought-provoking, this is a movie that fails to successfully explore a single intelligent thought. It fails as both sci-fi and fantasy. A robot is a robot is a robot.
To have the point of the movie be that David embodies "real" love is asinine. He is programmed to "love" - no more and no less. His love - despite the film's tage line - isn't "real". It never was and it never could be. This is the idea - that it is cruel to make a being that can't die fixate on beings that are born to die - that the movie should've explored if Spielberg had disposition to make a truly downbeat, challenging movie. -
Jul 01, 2001 6:25:38 AM CDT
Very long take on AI full of SPOILERS, and the reasons why most
by vynson
I think children love AI. I think adults love AI (especially those who have children). I think that adolescents (even 30 year old adolescents) are not equipped to understand the movie, either emotionally or intellectually. The fanboy/geek mentality was obviously expecting BLADE RUNNER or some such, and frankly, you guys just didn't get it. It isn't STAR TREK.
Another thing that jarred your expectations is that you try to break everything down into the three-act structure. It's all you understand, and that is why most of you hate European movies (how sophisticated you thought you were for enjoying CROUCHING TIGER though it was not a very sophisticated story).
AI was in four acts, not three. When the third act was over, you wanted to walk. You didn't understand that the movie was taking you full circle to the end of the line.
Before you get your geekcackles up, consider:
The story begins with the concept of a robot being made that does not honor the typical robot laws of SF past. The protect humans, serve humans, protect self offical robot creedo is out the window. I know this disturbed a few of you, but the imprinting to love Monica... Period... overwhelms everything else. Nothing overrides that. Ever. Nothing. That is the point.
Monica's decision to imprint David was the result of a void she thought would never be filled any other way. It was her attempt to heal herself... to give herself something to spend her bottled love on.
But when her real son returns, she makes the decision any real parent would... to protect her real son from any possible danger at any cost. Intellectually, she knows that David is a bag of bolts and she honors her responsiblity and love for Martin and drives David back to the CyberPlant place for destruction.
Only she can't do it. So she abandons him in the woods. Not only a very "fairy tale" fate for the ultimate step-child, but very Oedipal.
While Gigolo Joe was a wonderful character, he had little to do. His sub-plot should have been punched up a bit, I thought.
The Pinnochio references were plentiful and obvious. The WIZARD OF OZ references were a bit more subtle. The end of the world where the lions weep, was a clever reference to the yellow brick road and the cowardly lion. But most importantly, it symbolizes the quest in both movies of soulless objects to attempt personification, searching for heart and mind and courage... for humanity.
I thought the writers missed a chance when the female line of the David robot was called DARLENE rather than DOROTHY.
The double OZ reference with Dr. Know and Dr. Hobby was interesting... discovering that Dr. Know was Hobby's only interference... ahh pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
Teddy was a nice Toto, and the Flesh Fair scenes subbed nicely for wicked witch mania. I liked the religious overtones of the FF MC.
But while the external image systems were fairly blatant, the internal ones were also at work and by the end, the movie had chased its own tail.
David, unable to overide the imprint to love Monica, would rather end his existence than deal with not having her. Hobby sees him as a success. He sees himself as a failure.
This speaks to self-concept. In a forum where so many of you take a poll to find out what you think, this may have been over your heads. I mean, you are so interested in how the rest of the audience is reacting and whether they laughed "in the right places" or applauded or whatever, that it is apparent that you are not watching the movie for yourself.
David was thinking for himself. His maker's concepts and opinions were of no import. Get your arms around the religious implications of this theme.
Unable to attain the value he sought, David chose to end himself. Very powerful scene. His existence had become meaningless.
But in the abyss, he glimpsed hope... a glimmer of false hope, and he was renewed. Just as the tiniest fragment of implied meaning drives millions of real people through their lives every day.
And so David ends up trapped in a bubble under a ferris wheel (ie. trapped in his own point of view in the circle of life) praying to an ever fading image of a nonexistent deity... just as millions of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. are today.
And so he prays for 2000 years (very christian) until a new ice age comes and marks the end and the beginning of a new era... and the fourth and last act.
The robots that found David were wonderful. They hinted at aliens, perhaps a Spielberg signature effort, but were really just vague human forms. In his own image created he them.
The DNA problem could have been solved early on if, when David was cutting Monica's hair, it was more obvious that when she woke, she cut herself on the scissors and the blood remained on her hair.
So, the movie brings us full circle. Can a robot love as a child? Can a human love a robot as a child?
Whereas David was manufactured to alleviate the grief of a human, now a human has been manufactured to alleviate the grief of a robot.
So we see that a robot discovering love, despair, and hope is not the end of the line. It does not bring us full circle. It is this final act that achieves the closure and answers the question that Hobby's associate asked early on.
David gets his one day with a fake Monica. Real enough for him... as he had been real enough for her... for awhile.
The contrivance of clones only lasting a day was lame, but I can buy that the robots imprinted the Monica clone with David's memories of how she should be. They made her for him after all, not for herself. Just as David was made for the real Monica... not for himself.
But in loving her, he found true desire, personal motivation, and self-awareness. The movie tells us that love is the most profound of feelings because it shapes all others.
The movie ends with David falling asleep. Forever? It doesn't matter. We all face that at the end of the day. We close our eyes with or without expectations, with no guarantees, but the hope that, as Scarlet O'Hara said, "tommorrow is another day."
Thumbs up for AI. I took my 12 year old daughter and we enjoyed it. Bring your own brain to the movie instead of a head full of juvenile talkbackers and you may enjoy it as well. -
I guess if Gigolo Joe had pulled some machine guns out of his coat and done some bullet time, the fanboys here would have been a lot happier. Are you all so enamoured of bleak, pessimistic endings that you can't accept a film that has a traditional structure? If the film doesn't contain nihilistic undertones, Japanese teens snuffing themselves, or Bruce Campbell in any form, apparently the majority of this site can't be bothered.
-
AI was a brilliant movie. It is not that good, but it is brilliant. You people who didn't like it had your hopes too high. STOP GOING INTO MOVIES THINKING THEY WILL BE PERFECT! YOU DUMB BASTARDS! Listen, if you hated AI, like that critic from DC, then why don't you stop watching movies. You are obviously not a movie person. Oh, and THOSE ARE FUCKING ROBOTS AT THE END, NOT ALIENS! I can garontee that AI will get better with age. You people who hate it will come back 10 years later and praise it. Kubrick's movies were alwways hated when they first came out. And guess what? AI is a goddamn KUBRICK MOVIE! This is no Spielberg movie. Well, the Dr. Know scene is. But EVERY THING ELSE IS KUBRICK! YOU PEOPLE SHOULD BE HAPPY! A MAN JUST ROSE FROM THE GAVE TO FINISH ONE LASDT MOVIE! I don't ever want to hear any of you people say that you were sad that Eyes wide Shut was Kubrick's last movie, BECAUSE IT SO FUCKING WASN'T!
-
Oh yea, TEDDY KICKS ASS!!!!
-
Harry, were you paid by Universal to post only negative reviews about A.I, so that Fast and the Furious would stay #1 at the box office?
After seeing the film, I cannot believe the shit that the regulars on your site have been writing about it.
"Kubrick and Spielberg don't mix"
"Spielberg hasn't touched a script in years, and it shows"
"I was so dissapointed"
WHAT?
I guess when two geniuses collaborate, the expectations get REALLY high. I'll give you my review of the film:
The first 3/4 of the film is the best thing I've seen all year. The last 1/4 is too long, too far fetched, and a bit contrived. Does the end ruin the entire film? No. For not having touched a script in years, I think Spielberg did a damn good job. There's flaws, but on the whole, the script is good. I also think that Spielberg blended Kubrick's style, and his, pretty well.
I feel like we're in the 80's again, and all the critics are roasting Spielberg, while he doesn't deserve it.
-
Man this has to be one of the worst weekends ever for the box office. None of the movies this weekend really made any money.. AI only made 21 mil..
-
Man this has to be one of the worst weekends ever for the box office. None of the movies this weekend really made any money.. AI only made 21 mil..
-
I liked the movie, my husband hated it. I think it would have been better without the stupid storybook narration, but the bittersweet ending made sense to me. My husband was pissed because the ending felt cheap to him. He would have been happy if David was left with the blue fairy forever. Either way it is still an eyefull of wonderful visual images and is worth it for that alone.
-
I just want to point out a few more things. First off, you all are right that the ending is too long. I kind of wish that David had gone back to his mother at the end, for real you know. But I do like the end's concept, even though it's slow as crap. Another thing is the food deal everyone is complaining about. Here is how I see it: because David is so advanced, he actually adapts and learns. He actually grows, mentally that is. Because of that, his hatred for Martin (or what ever his brother's name is, I can't really remember) actually overrided his programing. Haven't you had peiods where you were so mad (or happy) that you weren't thinking logically? Shit, I know I have (hehehe). Well, that just happened to David. He is SPECIAL, remember?
-
Jul 01, 2001 11:52:02 AM CDT
Should I even bother putting in the word, "SPOILERS"? ...and an
by dlhstar
Here's a bastard of a question: IF David's mom had been brought back as a MACHINE based on his memories and desires of her rather than a 24-hour CLONE, would people have enjoyed the ending more? It would have given David all he wanted: He would be just as 'real' as his 'mother', and they would be able to spend forever together. ALSO, the whole SPACE-TIME PATHWAY question----Is it just me, or is it possible that the machines did something they didn't realize they could do and humans have failed to do: Prove the existance of the HUMAN SOUL (by being able to recapture and reinsert a person's essence into a body dead over 2000 years)?
-
.....is making me verrrrrrry angry!"
-
After a second viewing of A.I., and after reading lots of reviews and talkbalk, it seems like no one has disscussed a very important point: Who is telling the story? The answer to this question is at the heart of what makes A.I. so compelling and complex. Spielberg does not directly reveal who is telling the story, taking more of a Nabokovian approach to it. Consider the narrator/highly evolved meccha charactor Ben Kingsley voices. Consider also the opening narration of the film: "Those were the days when..." A.I. is nothing less than a fairy tale being told by the highly evolved meccha 2000+ years in the future. It is their Pinnochio. The obvious parallels to Pinnochio (David=Pinnochio, Teddy=Jimminy Cricket, Gigilo Joe=the cat whose name I forget at the moment, Flesh Fair=Stomobli's puppet show, Rogue City=Pleasure Island, Monstro, etc., etc.,) have already been discussed, however, seen in this context, they reveal a grander picture. As all fairy tales must have a happy ending, so to does A.I. In the future, when meccha rule the earth, what better ending to a robot fairy tale than to have the boy who wanted to be real finally convince his mother that he is real. Even in the robot-ruled future, they struggle to understand the emotions their creators had. See the film again in this context and pay close attention to William Hurt's opening speech. Therein lies the key to this masterwork.
-
Sorry, kids, but I have to say that the third act was most brilliant and disheartening. Yes, Kubrick might have ended it with David pinned beneath a rotted Ferris wheel, wishing for an eternity to become a real boy, but Spielberg is not Kubrick. Nothing in the third act, save the excavation of David's body by the advanced mechas, is real. David's house, David's mother, and even the love she has for him are fabricated images, created by the mechas from David's recovered memories. The mechas knew that David was built as a child, and therefor thinks like a child, so they set about creating a scenario that would make the most sense to him. In this case, bringing back his "mother" for one day using a strand of DNA. Realistically, this would not work since 2,000 years have passed and any skin fragments upon the hair follicle would be gone. But DAVID DOES NOT KNOW THAT, and the mechas realize this.
Trully, the mechas want for his happiness because he is their last link to the human race. He is the only surviving example of their creators. They are pampering him in any way they can.
The true horror and heartbreak of this final act comes from knowing that David's "mother" is not real, and that any "love" she has for him is nothing more than a virtually constructed reality, based upon his stored memory. It is a bizzare and decidedly Kubrickian finale, but that's just what I thought. -
Just a note on this comment: "7. The Flesh Fair sequence is poorly-devised, and dull. People of the future will hire sitters and pay for parking to see acid poured on one mecha after another? Wouldn't this have been a good place to stage the best episode of "Battlebots" ever? "
Well, people of the PRESENT do this already. If you don't believe me, go to http://www.srl.org
Mark Pauline and company have been doing it for 25 years. The Flesh Fair was pretty entertaining..sort of a futuristic 'truck pull'. Me like. -
I posted earlier, asking if the Flesh Fair was morally wrong, given that up until David, robots were incapable of love (and presumaly of other emotions). Then I got to thinking of the STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION epiosde in which there was a trial to determine whether or not Data had a right to decline to be dis-assembled. It's been ages since I saw that episode, but at the time I did see it, I thought it was thoughtful, logical and moving. I didn't find "A.I." thoughtful OR logical OR moving. When I saw that episode of Star Trek, I understood that Data was a sentient being, although incapable of emotions. When I saw "A.I." - I had no idea what the robots were supposed to be - were they machines like my computer, or were they some sort of life form, or was it impossible to know what they were BECAUSE THE WRITER DIDN'T KNOW. My conclusion was Spielberg never made up his mind. The robots wanted to avoid termination (e.g., Joe avoiding being charged with murder) - but they were incapable of asking not to be destroyed at the flesh fair. What kind of sense does that make. The fact that "A.I." leads us to ask questions does not make it deep or artful. I'm aksing questions because the damn film doesn't make any sense.
-
I posted earlier, asking if the Flesh Fair was morally wrong, given that up until David, robots were incapable of love (and presumaly of other emotions). Then I got to thinking of the STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION epiosde in which there was a trial to determine whether or not Data had a right to decline to be dis-assembled. It's been ages since I saw that episode, but at the time I did see it, I thought it was thoughtful, logical and moving. I didn't find "A.I." thoughtful OR logical OR moving. When I saw that episode of Star Trek, I understood that Data was a sentient being, although incapable of emotions. When I saw "A.I." - I had no idea what the robots were supposed to be - were they machines like my computer, or were they some sort of life form, or was it impossible to know what they were BECAUSE THE WRITER DIDN'T KNOW. My conclusion was Spielberg never made up his mind. The robots wanted to avoid termination (e.g., Joe avoiding being charged with murder) - but they were incapable of asking not to be destroyed at the flesh fair. What kind of sense does that make. The fact that "A.I." leads us to ask questions does not make it deep or artful. I'm aksing questions because the damn film doesn't make any sense. One more thing - anyone remember in the STAR TREK - THE NEXT GENERATION pilot, Ryker compared Date to Pinnochio?
-
Other than the Spielberg-aliens-ending this was a magnificent film. It started with a Kubrick beginning that was tense creepy and thoughtful and for that part of the film it was amazing. The ending was interesting from a Sci-Fi point of view, but kind of pulled you back from your suspension of disbelief. It is poorly advertized. This is really no Spielberg film, it is a dark thoughtful and insightful Sci-Fi thinkers movie with amazing special effects. Doesn't sound good to you? DONT GO!!! You probably wont like it and will slam the movie to everyone you meet. If this does sound interesting, bring an intellectual friend and be prepared to discuss some of the movies concepts after the film over a beer. I thought it was the best film I have seen in a couple of years
-
Jul 01, 2001 4:45:53 PM CDT
I HAVE THE ANSWERS TO YOUR STUPID LOGIC HOLES, YOU DUMBASSES!
by cheesebiscuit
Here are some answers for all of the questions that have surrounded AI.
--Question number one: why didn -
A mixed bag of reviews?! BULLSHIT!
More like 10 negative reivews, 3 mixed/positive and a few from some dumb idiots. I for one, liked this film. I LOVE IT!!! Reading some of the reviews posted on this site proves my theory that you did not get this film. The whole concept flew over your head. The guy getting all pissed over the motorcycles having wolfs' heads. What's your beef? What?! Are most of you pissed because this film didn't follow the typical Hollywood formula?! Are you pissed because David didn't get to live happly ever after with his mummy? GET OVER IT! Go see your Hollywood, formulated bullshit like Pearl Harbor. I'm going to see the good films..you know..the ones that had thought put into it... -
Despite his obsession with certain leading ladies, Ebert can be right on target at times.
-
Ok, first of all, the Teddy care is a direct rip-off of "Tock" from "Return to OZ" right down to the way he walks, companionship with the human child, and the same voice and facial expressions. no doubt, there are countless references to Wizard of OZ (Gigolo Joe and Tin MAN?), Blade Runner (Rouge City), Running Man (during the Flesh Fair scene, etc.etc. Not every original at all..does anyone remember "D.A.R.Y.L."?? Also, I still don't know who murdered Evan Chan or who Jeanine Salla is. Can anyone help me out there??
-
This isn't so much of a review of the movie, as a shameless self promotion for my direct to internet spoof of A.I. and Hannibal. It depicts what would happen should Hannibal and David's paths ever cross.
The title is The Misadventures of Hannibal and David, and it's available for download at:
http://www.hannibalai.com/
There are five sizes, in three different formats...
Actually, I've changed my mind... just a note about the ending (SPOILERS) for those that still don't seem to get it. When I saw the film, I first thought that those beings were aliens. But the more I think about it, the more I'm convinced that they're advanced Meccas. And the reason that they were so kind to David and wanted him to be happy was because he was the first of their kind. It's as if he is to them as Adam and Eve are to us.
I'm going to have to watch it a second time to get a clearer picture on what exactly Spielberg was trying to accomplish with the ending, and see if there were any more clues I missed leading to the identity of those beings. But it definitely would make sense, and it also makes for a much more satisfying ending than I (as well as most critics) originally thought. And it also echos our fears that, if mankind were to create creatures like the meccas, they would become progressively smarter and stronger than us, and eventually wipe us out. -
This is sad to see, but i can empathize because i went through it with TPM. A lot of AI fans are in the same type of denial we Star Wars fans were in, unable to accept the failure of a movie we had such high expectations for. An obvious symptom is the reaching and rationalizing they do to defend the film. Don't worry, you will snap out of it sooner or later. Sadly for some it will be after the fourth or fifth time you've watched it. Suddenly you snap out of it, and you suddenly realize how much time and money you wasted because you were in a psychological state of denial.
-
Obviously a good number of people who saw the movie believe(d) that those silver bastards at the end were aliens. Is it their fault? Not really. It's the movie's fault, call it ambiguity or call it poor writing. Often one is confused for the other, but rarely the other way around.
-
So it's not as Kubrick-y as film dorks wanted. Spielberg had his shit together on this one and it shows. Teddy alone was worth the price of admission, with a very HAL-esque voice performance ("Are you taking me to David?") This was the perfect example of a futuristic fairy tale, where science and aliens replace magic and fairies. I can totally see why Kubrick wanted Spielberg to direct this, it's another example of the guy's genius. Kubrick, great as he was at what he did, is not the kind of director to wring the most out of a movie about a child who simply wants to be real so his mommy can love him. And Kubrick knew that. It was a LITTLE longer than it needed to be. My guess is that that they were going with the idea that longer films win Oscars or something. If the movie had ended right after the Ferris Wheel incident, it would have been a perfect Hans Christian Andersen ending. Bittersweet. However, there are different levels of bittersweet, and that is what the story reached for. In this world, even though certain things are exaggerated for fairy tale effect, such as the Flesh Faire (which is close enough to Stromboli's for me,) and the looks of certain machinery (like the wolf-cycles or the tunnels that look like Erykah Badu) it's a very "real" world in the sense that magic does not exist. However, to replace magic, we have science. To replace magical fairies, we have benevolent aliens. Even though David's wish cannot be granted in exactly the way he wants, they do allow him to experience one day of the lifetime he longed for, and with that, he was as complete as he'd ever be. People who didn't like this movie probably didn't like The Thin Red Line either. Anyway, my two cents is that AI was a fine feature film. Haley Joel was impressive as always, I forot who played Mommy but she was very good as well as being extraordinarily beautiful. William Hurt was a little underused. Jude Law was perfect (if the performance seemed "bland," remember what he's supposed to be playing!) The voice cameos by Robin Williams and Chris Rock seemed a bit out of place at first, but in the big picture (even though I ussualy can't stand Williams,) they added a bit of humor to a fairly dark movie. Anyway, I'm going to see it again at least once.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/library/film/071899kubrick-ai.html
-
for he would have merged 2001 and Clockwork with Blade Runner, & Gattaca perfectly.
Ridley has the Kubrickian sense in spades. Too bad.
The whole point is that human race will obliterate itself in the near future. -
I must side with the reviewers and filmgoers who have found A.I. to be a very good film. I will not dismiss opposing points of view or attack anybody who doesn't agree with me - that's for the less classy geekboys who talkback here. I will take a minute to say that those of you who are trying to get a rise out of people by writing criticisms that are blatently insulting and pointless, or are just attacking people for liking the film, are wasting your time. The same must be said for those of you who like the film: don't insult people who have a different opinion than yourselves. I hope those of you who feel the overwhelming need to defend A.I. chill out -let the film stand as is for yourself as a personal/subjective experience. Films such as A.I. have and will continue to divide audiences for a long time to come. I'm glad I'm not involving myself in heated debates about the film - I find it pointless. I will gladly discuss differing points of view with deliberately mature and respectful folks (e.g. friends, relatives, other serious film-goers), but I will not argue or defend. I can understand that the story A.I. tells did not work for some people, that's not a big deal to me - thus, I feel no need to defend it. I'm not ashamed for liking the film and those who didn't like it shouldn't feel ashamed either. A.I. definitely spoke to me...I was intrigued and moved by it. I am a fan of most of Spielberg's work (discounting 1941, Always, Hook, The Lost World, the 'Kick the Can' sequence in Twilight Zone, and about 45 minutes worth of Amistad) and I feel this is one of his better efforts. I rather enjoyed John Williams' score, especially towards the end during the flight to Manhattan. Young Haley Osment, a rare and gifted talent, is wonderful in a very challenging role. Yes, the movie is rather frustrating, but not because I didn't like the way it played, its more because it challenged some conventions and asked a lot of provocative questions. A persom in the talkbalk here likened this film to the 'Kick the Can' sequence in Twilight Zone. That struck me as a very odd observation - not necessarily bad one, I guess, but one I don't quite understand. I don't see how A.I. was the slightest bit sugarcoated...quite the opposite actually. I found the film ultimately challenging and richly textured, with moments of true power and brilliance. It's not easy to swallow at times, but that's okay with me. The ending did not, in the slightest manner, offend me. I found some moments in the ending to be some of the most interesting, albeit strange, filmmaking I've seen in several years. Somebody in this talkback mentioned that after seeing the film again, it makes sense as a fairytale told by the evolved Mechas. I'm not sure how I feel about that concept, although it's definitely interesting to ponder. I, for one, will gladly discuss this film with any of my friends, family, and whoever else - those who agree with my point of view, and those who don't. I'm sure the conversations in both cases will be quite stimulating, as long as we keep it respectful. Happy moviegoing and try to respect the difference of opinions expressed of this, and any, film. That's what keeps it all fun. People fight enough about all sorts of other things...we don't need to assert dominance here, and we don't need this to become an outlet for anger either. Peace out and take it easy.
-
I saw A.I. yesterday. I haven't read the reviews of other people, execpt that I have heard that some critcs love it and others hated it. I hated it. I was unimpressed. This film is not Spielberg, and I love spielberg. Look at my screenname. I hear that some critics are raving that this is a film for intelligent people.
After seeing this film, I realize that the concept is thought provoking, and people of higher intellect will like to ponder the possiblities that this film tries to present. But this film is far from intelligent. It is muddled and illogical. The screenplay has gaping holes and the directing is second rate. It feels as though Spielberg was asleep at the wheel. Its as if he wasn't himself. This might even be so, because this film was a collaboration between Spielberg and Stanley Kubrick. It seems as though Speilberg was trying to channel the deceased Kubrick. He was trying to become Kubrick and left Spielberg at the door. This film is really a Kubrick knock off.
Why this film doesn't work --
1) David, the A.I. mecha (robot)is programmed to feel and show love. Haley Joel Osmert, who gave a stunning performance in "The Sixth Sense" comes off as a robot through the whole movie. He is basically flat and lifeless and any emotion he does show seems forced and contrived (robot like). His teddy bear robot toy shows more emotion than Osmerts' David character.
2) Many of the other robots in the movie seem to have self-awareness. Jade Laws' Gigilo Joe character (as well as Teddy Bear) seem capeable of showing love and compassion, especially in the way he helped Osmert, even when he knew it might be a suicide mission to go to the underwater Manhattan. He seems more real than Osmert, who is supposed to be the first of a kind to show and feel love and have a sense of self. As an audience member, I felt no emotional attachment to robot David, and I didn't really care what happend to him. In fact, I was more concerned with the fates of Jade Laws' and Teddys characters.
3) Davids adoptive parents, Monica and Henry seem flat and lifeless. Their characters are underdeveloped and they don't seem to show any genuine emotion. They seem almost as robot like as David. The question is, did Speilberg do this intentionally? As if to say, are we all robots in some way? Are humans, although biological, according to our definition, artificial in a certain way and not so much different than David? Are we really much different from a robot capeable of thought, feeling and self-awarness? I don't think Spielberg intented this, but if he did, it didn't work for me.
4) The movie just goes haywire. Many of the scenes seem disjointed. Much of Davids quest seems like it doesn't move the story foward. These scenes seem like excuses to show of special effects. Davids plight to find the Blue Fairy is just ridiculous. The movie would have been better with no Pinocchio references while developing its own plot point which leads David on a quest to become human.
In my opinion, how Spielberg should have made this movie so it would have been a Spielberg film (or at least his "own" film) --
David should have acted and behaved like a real person rather than a robot. I wasn't convinced that he was real.
The other robots in the movie should have acted like robots. I couldn't distinguish David from Gigilo Joe or even Teddy Bear for that matter.
The parents characters should have been thoroughly developed. We should have seen them as real, three dimensional people that we care for. We should have seen them question who they are, who we all are as humans and who David really is. Can a machine really love? Are we all human or are we all really machines in some way, capeable of self-awareness and love?
There should have been no Pinocchio references and no quest for the Blue Fairy although he should have gone on some sort of quest to find out who he really is.
Spielberg should have let Kubrick rest in peace and made his own movie. If any other director made this movie, and if Kubrick was never involed in the development of this film, I believe that all the critics that gave this film 4 stars have gave it only 1 star while calling it a Kubrick rip-off.
-
The entire time I was watching A.I., I was aware of two things: 1) I was coming up with at least 2 or 3 really hilarious smart remarks for every 60 seconds of screentime (particularly after the jump to 4000 whenever A.D.... and 2) it was having a strange, powerful effect on me. Bizarre, flawed, and possibly concrete evidence that Spielberg is off his nut, it's still the first major American film I've seen this year liable to be discussed for a while, and whether or not the ending succeded, discussion is still a good thing, it's why we're here I hope. Something else: I admit, I dunno all the circumstances surrounding his exit, but I think Mr. Sleep's words to the contrary should've at least been left available as something to consider.
-
I felt like Spielberg made A.I. for a generation of people who watched E.T. when it was first released. Where E.T. was a child's story, a child's fairytale, A.I. was an adult's fairtyale, and in turn it affected me the same way E.T. affected me when I first watched it in the theaters at the age of three.
Oh my God, what a thought provoking, heartbreaking, bitter sweet film. (SPOILERS)
Another thing to note. Why can't the beings be aliens????? Sure, they can be mechas if you wish them to be, but explain to me why they just CAN'T be aliens. -
Although the film was intriguing, as a fairy tale set in the "real" world, it also felt very uneven. Your elegant insight, which I will take with me on subsequent viewings, may take care of many elements that I perceived as problems. Even so, that "space-time" crap was unnecessarily elaborate.
-
Well, this talkback is probably one of the most extensive ive seen on AICN, and I think that alone speaks volumes about this film. Either way, here is my two cents. I loved the movie, but yes, it was flawed. Before I go into that, let me say a hearty congratulations to Mr. Spielburg for making such a different movie from anything he has ever done. This was aggressive and unapologetic, and I was highly impressed at what I saw, regardless if it worked or not. Very few mainstream filmmakers do anything like this . They like to stay safe. This was such a departure, and it was a fantastic one. Anyway, back to the movie. I watched A Clockwork Orange, Strangelove and 2001 the day before I went to go see this. I wanted a good, clean picture of Kubrick in my mind before I stepped into the theater. While there were definitely some Kubrick-like moments in the movie (narrow facial close ups, long lapses of silence and deliberate movement, etc) this was, without question, a movie by Steven Spielburg. I wont go over every detail, as it has been dicussed to death here, so I will just get right to the point. The one major flaw here was the "guest star" voices. Chris Rock and Robin Williams both pulled me violently from the flow of the story, and were TOTALLY unnecessary. I am almost angry at SS for making such a simple error. But in defense of the movie, though it did explain certain things that it should have left to the audience to figure out, I DO NOT think it was a major problem and it did not take away from the movie for me. I think the difference in pacing and feel was deliberate, and I disagree with most of the gripes ive read. I think a great deal of people misunderstood this movie and will change their minds after future viewings. Anyway, 4 stars out of 5. This movie will age like fine wine and, in time, will be remembered as one of Spielburg's finest works.
-
Regarding Teddy...I loved that character. Spielburg could SO easily have gone over the top with him, giving him a celebrity voice like Eddie Murphy or (if he hadnt been used already) Robin Williams, but he didnt. He kept the character simple, robotic yet sympathetic, and basic. I honestly could see something like that existing in the next 30 years or so. Teddy Ruxpin, anyone?
-
how can some people take 600 words to say a movie sucked? isn't it just easier to say "saw it. dumb." i did, it was, in my opinion. saw fast and the furious the next day, and liked it. guess i'm a B movie boy forever.
-
I just had to put in my two cents here. This is not a film for people who are only looking at the surface of the movie. If anybody out there thinks the main plot of this film is about a boy trying to find his mother, you completely missed the point. The movie is about the IMPLICATIONS, the RESPONSIBILITIES, and a dozen other things. No movie in my entire life has haunted me like A.I. It is poetic and it is powerful.
My only complaint was when Chris Rock's voice ripped me out of the film and back into the theatre for a moment. What the hell? -
Either you love it or hate it. I usually love those movies. I'm a cult film lover. Yeah, the budgets are bad, as well as the scripts, but the ideas are original, and that's what you appreciate about it.
-
Jul 02, 2001 1:54:04 AM CDT
TEDDY FUCKING ROCKS! Teddy will find Chandra Levy and will star
by removed_user
You know I'm thinking about testing out that new Homestead ripoff and starting a darthpsychotic Starwars website. YOUR DAILY DOSE OF STARWARS AND HOT TEEN ASS! Of course, it will have Teddy also. I love that little fucker.
-
To the people who complained about Chris Rock and Robin Williams' voices giving you a reality jolt during AI (not that I blame you.) What if, just what if...it wasn't just them portraying those machines at face value. What if, let's say, their voices were deliberately copied/sampled to be put into these commercial devices? Ahhhhh, see? Well, it helped ME ignore them...besides, because of a goddamn crying baby, I didn't get to hear some of the crucial dialogue at the end. I asked my friend what the future mechas were saying and he mumbled something about aliens. So I left the theater assuming they were aliens and not the descendants of the other mechas and now I have to go see this movie again. Which I will. Gladly. So far we have a front-runner for Best Picture. IMHO, A.I. is better and more watchable than Gladiator, American Beauty, OR Shakespeare in Love. Of course, that's just my opinion. I could be misguided. Besides, in my opinion, Crouching Tiger and Thin Red Line should have won their respective years anyway.
-
Of course this is probably going to be unread sitting down at the lower levels of a massive talkback... but I too have an opinion. Probably a bit overstated at this point, but, what the hell? I was perfectly happy with the movie until the bottom of the ocean. I liked Teddy, I liked Jude Law. I liked the flesh fair. And I thought the movie was actually going to end the way it should. With that little bastard on the bottom of the ocean. The movie had gone great up to that point for me. Then for the next 15 minutes I was squirming impatiently ready to leave. That ending was just so unneccessary, and incoherant. Hey, I thought those were aliens. I guess now I could see them being robots. But everyone I talked to afterwards thought they were aliens. Did they even test screen this movie for responses? Because I find it hard to believe that they would have kept in that godawful, sugar-coated, ass-dragging ending. I would have been totally happy if he lived for eternity on the bottom of the ocean never quite understanding why the fairy wasn't turning him into a human. But that might just be me, I like twisted stuff like that.
-
First I really loved this movie, and I can not remember a more
polarizing Sci/Fi movie since
"Blade Runner" back in the
eighties. And I seem to recall
that fanboys hated it too with a
passion back then. Only time made it the classice it is.
Anyway I have a question:
What does the appearance of the
"Moon" means symbolically before
the "Flesh Fair"?
What I mean is, why does
the "hunting "ship has to look
like the moon?
Could it be a Steven Spielberg
symbol that the "orga" have set
themselves so superior to all
the "mecha" that they believe
themselves to be almost deities
over the robot's fate?
Or that is the twilight of the humans as a species?
Any Ideas? -
...since Empire Of The Sun(Saving Private Ryan was great but not in the same league). I think Kubrick passed this story along to Spielberg because one of Spielberg's better film traits is to have the audience bond with the lead child and be able to see themselves within him.
A.I. is a combination of sci-fi/fantasy with dashes of mythology blended in. HJO is an excellant actor and definately,this movie would've not worked without him.I found myself angry with most of the adult characters and their disregard of David's feelings-if you create beings with emotion and intellect,you have to treat them as you would want to be treated yourself(I know how sappy that sounds but I for one,am not afraid of being emotional when necessary).
Jude Law also gave an excellant performance(his intentions toward the Blue Fairy were hysterical)and I did want a better ending for him but this story is David's quest and the irony of being created to love someone and having that someone made over to love you was a very Ray Bradbury touch. -
Harry - are you ever going to post YOUR comments about AI??
-
AI has been one of the most polazing movies I have seen
since "Blade Runner". I remember
that when that movie came out in
the 80's a lot of "fan boys"
hated it beacuse it was not
really a Sci/fi action movie.
Only time has made it the classic
it deserves to be.
Amazing how short our collective
memories are...
-
I have one question:
Why was the "Hunter" Airship the
appeared before the "Flesh Fair" shaped like the moon?
Does is symbolizes that man saw
himself as a Deity over the Machines?
Or that we are in our twilight
years?
For a person hardened by a lot fx movies, I was really impressed
with this move an all it means.
Thanks
Good Job!
-
We laughed, we cried. All for the wrong reasons. Some left. Some stayed and wished they left. Pure schlock. Was I the only one who recognized the Kid Rock robot playing "live" at the Flesh Fair? That little perk was the high point of the movie for me! Poor Stevie....sigh....
-
WARNING: This review contains major spoilers of A.I.: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE. If you haven't seen the film and don't want the storyline spoiled, then divert your eyes now. Otherwise, read on. As always, this is "review" is just my opinion. If you feel the urge, check out the movie and judge for yourself.
I hated the ending of A.I. I do confess though that I loved the first half of the movie -- I thought that it was one of the better science fiction tales on the big screen in a long time. Visually it was stunning and the premise of artificial intelligence and "what makes us human" was interesting. It had a lot of potential.
But then it just collapsed -- no doubt because of Spielberg's over-indulgence and because they AGAIN didn't understand the fantasy genre.
First the good, and then I'll get into the bad:
Like I said, I loved the premise. This is an idea that's been examined in countless science fiction and fantasy tales, ever since the landmark Robot stories of Isaac Asimov. And it could still be done in a fresh way. The fact that the main character is a robot doesn't necessarily mean that we won't care for "him" or relate to him. If done right, it'll work, and that first third of the film worked for me. I felt Spielberg tugging on my emotional strings with some scenes, like when the mother spoke the codewords and David called her "Mommy" for the first time, and when she abandoned him in the woods rather than take him back to the Cybertech place, not wanting him destroyed. So just because Haley Joel Osment's character was a robot didn't bother me -- we could still care for it, (I've cared for non-human characters before, like the Replicants in BLADERUNNER or the Tinman and Scarecrow in WIZARD OF OZ or Data in STAR TREK: THE NEXT GENERATION.)
Unfortunately, A.I. failed to carry though on its premise. Once the first act established the awesome set-up, it just didn't seem to know where to go with it. What makes us human? Is it just our flesh? Well, the Mechas look and feel like orgas. Is it because of the biological functions that humans can do? Well the Mechas can imitate most of them -- pain sensations, intercourse, even eating eventually (I thought it was cool when David tried to eat spinach and needed his internal machinery vacuum-cleaned -- to me it implied that with some ingenuity our internal digestive organs could probably be replicated through some mechanical means someday, that's not the defining element of what makes us human.) So what makes us human? According to the opening scene, it's self-awareness ("I think, therefore I am") and dreaming, and creating. So the premise is terrific. But there were major problems with the execution. This is probably why Kubrick waited so long to make this movie (and died before he could see it made). I don't think he ever got the chance to solve the obvious problems in the story structure...
The big problem I had was how they hit us over the head with the Pinocchio analogy. One mention might have been enough, but I think it would have been best to drop the whole thing. Or maybe just have the "blue fairy" be an implanted memory that would lead David back to his creator without any further explanation, and he wouldn't know what it meant or where it came from, just an homage and a cool reference to Pinocchio, without the heavyhanded message rammed down our throughts -- "look, this is a futuristic retelling of the Pinocchio tale, get it?" Okay, okay, an artificial boy wants to become human, we get it. But the real heart of the Pinocchio tale is the relationship between Geppeto and Pinocchio. I felt no bond between the robot-maker and his robot-creation.
Also this could have been a mythic journey type film, like some of the best fantasies, but again it was heavy-handed. "Wink wink, we're off to see the Wizard, I mean Dr. Know." Okay, cool, but the characters don't seem to learn anything on their journey. And Gigolo Joe just seemed to be along for the ride with nothing really important to do. Poor Teddy was a cool character but again seemed more in the background then a crucial active participant in what was going on.
I hate to say "this is how I would have made the picture" but what the hell, this is how I would have made it. David needed to lose his innocence on that journey into the real world -- but I sensed no added knowledge in his character after all that he experienced at the Flesh Fair or Rouge City or once he met his maker and his fellow robot creations in flooded Man-Hattan. I thought this is where the tale was going, but David didn't change or grow from any of his experiences. He was still hunting the elusive Blue Fairy (who didn't exist) and still wanted to be a flesh and blood real boy, when the better solution would have been to have him (and us, the moviegoers) learn a little bit about what being human really is all about. And then, have him ignore his "DAS" programming ("damage avoidance system?") and try to kill himself, try to commit suicide like a human being in emotional and spiritual crisis, only to realize that he couldn't. And that ending COULD have worked, if the dream sequence was DAVID'S OWN and not just a false implanted illusion by the aliens/evolved Mechas or whatever they were. If it was David's own creation, it would have been a nice ending -- did David finally become human? Did he really dream or was this just another by-product of his AI programming? By having the "future Mechas" actively give this artificial fantasy to David as a "reward to keep him happy" avoids the entire question built up in the movie, and makes the ending unsatisfying.
So that's why I was really disappointed with the film. I actually enjoyed the b-movie THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS better. Even though it had its flaws and plotholes and unbelievable moments, I still cared for the characters more and left the theater more satisfied and entertained than I did with A.I.
-
Did anyone else find the sloppy editing horrific. $100 million on effects and no one could remove the boom mike from TWO diferent shots!?!?!?
-
Jul 02, 2001 8:51:53 AM CDT
Do you people know anything about the history of S.K's involveme
by racurnutte
Kubrick was obsessed with making it a modern-day fairy tale. He was obsessed with Pinocchio and the Blue Fairy. In fact, the author Brian Aldiss was frustrated with Kubrick's insistence upon David becoming a real boy. 99% of the geeks on this site seem to think they have some premonition of Kubrick's intentions (he hated Spielberg? he had Spielberg install a fax machine in his bedroom so they could correspond about A.I.). And he didn't even want to direct it. A quote from Jan Harlan (S.K's brother-in-law): "He wanted the film to be a Stanley Kubrick production of a Steven Spielberg film." You think that Kubrick would have made a cold, heartless film. You don't seem to have seen any of his movies. Kubrick exuded warmth in all of his films: compassion for HAL in 2001; compassion for Private Pyle in Full Metal Jacket; he had an extremely intimate relationship with Jack Torrance in The Shining; and I shouldn't even have to mention his moving love story, Eyes Wide Shut. The thing is that Kubrick delved into love and emotion in a different way than most filmmakers...which is why he wanted Spielberg to do this film. He knew that either a.)he couldn't make the legitimate fairy tale himself that he thought the story deserved or b.)he thought people wouldn't accept the film from him.
Here, read my review for more on this topic.Please email me directly if you have any comments, want to ream me, et al.
Spielberg's fantastical epic
A.I. is a strange, beautiful amalgam of two of cinema's most influential
and important filmmakers, Steven Spielberg and Stanley Kubrick. Hatched from
Brian Aldiss' short stories (brilliant in their own respect), A.I.
stunningly takes two decidely different tonal artists and produces a kind
of thoughtful fairy tale, the likes of which I've never seen.
This is Spielberg's finest film, a true step forward in an already magnificent
career. It makes me all the more excited for his next SF project, Minority
Report.
In the future, people cannot have children at will. They have to receive
permits and can go their entire lives without producing a true offspring.
One company, headed by Professor Hobby (William Hurt, wonderfully subdued),
decides to begin production of a mechanical being (mecha) who can be programmed
to love. It can weep, become jealous, experience despair. A colleague asks,
"If you program a mecha to love a human, what responsibility does that
person have to the robot?" Hobby brushes off the question with religious
dogma, surprising for such a man of science: "After all, didn't God create
man to love him?" The ignoring of this dilemma is the crux of Spielberg's
opus.
Henry Swinton (Sam Robards), an employee of Hobby's company, Cybertronics,
and his wife Monica (the luminous Frances O'Connor) have a son who is cryogenically
frozen, awaiting a cure for an unknown illness. Devastated by their loss,
they are chosen as the first candidates for the David model. After a bit of
reluctance, they agree.
Haley Joel Osment, one of the movies' most studious and effective actors,
embodies David with eery precision. David never blinks, and his eyes always
move toward a focal point before the rest of his body. Though it's largely
during the movie, Osment even took the exact same amount of steps across variousunseen
rooms every time he crossed them. He is a meticulously dedicated actor, and
this is the finest performance by a child actor in movie history.
There are two scenes in the film that are as fine examples of perfect movie
acting as I've ever seen.
The first comes at the moment when Monica decides to go ahead and activate
his emotional responses. She must read seven words in a precise order to trigger
this behavior. In a few short seconds, an amazing transformation takes place.
Through only a facial expression, Osment takes David from an emotionally empty
mecha to a truly precocious human child. It is a stunning piece of performance.
The second comes after the Swinton's son Martin (Jake Thomas) returns home.
Both boys react to one another with jealousy, only David lacks a true understanding
of his feelings. He has been programmed to be jealous, but he does not know
why. At Martin's birthday party, a human child attempts to trigger David's
pain reflexes. Frightened, David cowers behind Martin for protection. With
nowhere to go, he escapes into the Swinton's swimming pool. But his robotic
instincts don't kick in with the threat of drowning, because he cannot die.
Martin, on the other hand, can, and the Swintons decide that David is too
dangerous to keep. So Monica takes him for a ride, presumably to return him
to Cybertronics where he will be destroyed. But the conundrum of Hobby's peers
comes into play, and Monica has grown to love David. She cannot bear his destruction,
so she abandons him in the woods.
Here is where Osment ripped my heart out. You see, it's difficult to realize
that David is really just a machine. He doesn't truly feel these emotions,
but has been programmed to feel them. What's complex about Spielberg's film
is that it suggests that since David does not know he has been programmed
to love, the love he feels is experienced by him as real. So his programmed
instincts kick in and he begs for his mother to keep him. She doesn't, and
his rejection is devastatingly portrayed.
From this point on David, fueled by the storybook Pinnochio, embarks
on a mission to find the Blue Fairy, confident that if she can turn him into
a real boy, Monica will take him back. I say Monica, and not the Swintons,
because his only real devotion is to Monica, whom he calls Mommy. She is the
one who activated him, and his programming has linked him to her forever.
He merely calls Henry by his given name.
Spielberg takes David on an amazing, and often terrifying, journey. This
is a surprisingly dark and horrific film for the master, and he pulls it all
off with flying colors.
The terrors of the Flesh Fair, where robots are destroyed by mecha-hating
humans, is remniscent of Romero's ending to Night of the Living Dead,
where bloodthirsty rednecks torture and kill mindless zombies for fun.
From there, where he meets the dazzling Gigolo Joe (Jude Law, hysterically
funny and droll at the same time), he travels to Rouge City to consult an
electronic psychic of sorts, then finishes his journey in the obliterated
city of Manhattan. At this point, his trip becomes a trippy mix between 2001:
A Space Odyssey and Close Encounters of the Third Kind. I don't
indulge in spoilers, but this really is where you'll either love or hate the
film. You see, a strange thing has happened in the reviews for A.I.
We live in a time where everyone, from the studio executive to the kid that
rips the tickets at the local multiplex, is media-savvy. People on the street
discuss box office grosses and overseas distribution rights, and entertainment
gossip is at the pinnacle of its realm of influence.
In this climate of extreme media awareness, an unusual phenomenon has arisen.
With the Internet especially, anyone can be a movie or television or music
critic. Anyone with an HTML editor and sufficient web server space can become
a widely exposed critic. I myself have no real credentials or education in
the film arts. I steered clear of film school because of its coy self-importance,
and I dropped out of a journalism and English major to provide for my new
family. I'm a nobody, just a regular old filmgoer with maybe a more expansive
knowledge of film history and grammar than most people.
But criticism is empowerment, and certain people place themselves in the
mindset of being more important, or influential, than they are. This is not
a new concept, just one that is much more evident with the vastness of Internet
capabilities.
The past five years have seen many movies made or broken based upon Net hype.
The Blair Witch Project benefited from extremely positive Net hype.
Recently, films such as Pearl Harbor, Swordfish and Atlantis
have been all but squashed by the deafening sound of negative Internet buzz.
Like it or not, the Net is powerful, and of course opinion is opinion, so
most people will scoff at my argument.
But I think it's the duty of any editorial writer to not take on an aura
of self-importance, trying to make your opinions out to be Bible truths, rather
than what they are: reflections from a student of cinema.
Now this isn't just me attacking those who have tried to discredit a film
that I treasure. I would say the same about any film, in fact I have in another
recent article.It's just that the self-involvement
of some of the reviews I've read for A.I. have bordered on McCarthyism.
Take Aint It Cool News, a site that
I normally support wholeheartedly. In the past weeks, its critics have departed
on a crusade of sorts, one to completely discredit Spielberg and A.I.
I don't even know that it's intentional, since the people who write for the
site are normally very objective and open to other opinions. But sometimes,
trends start, and often it's considered trendy to trash a particular film.
Many people even make up their minds to hate something before they've even
seen it.
They like to talk about what Kubrick would have done with this film. The
fact is, Spielberg has made the movie that Kubrick himself wanted to make.
In fact, if you've picked up the recent reprinting of Brian Aldiss' Supertoys
Last All Summer Long (which includes the two most recent short stories
that he wrote about David the mecha), you have seen that Kubrick was obsessed
with the idea of Pinocchio and the Blue Fairy. Aldiss almost seemed taken
aback by the intensity of Kubrick's desire to make a truly sentimental fairy
tale.
Kubrick didn't make the film for many reasons. The technology was not advanced
enough for his liking (originally, he wanted to use a real robot to play David);
he got caught up in other projects (The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, Eyes
Wide Shut); he thought that Spielberg was better suited to making the
film than he; most likely, he finally resolved himself that audiences wouldn't
accept a fairy tale from Stanley Kubrick.
Read the reviews. Everyone is lambasting Spielberg for his fantasy approach.
They say that Kubrick would have made it different, but he wouldn't have,
so he correctly predicted his own failure, even before the film was in pre-production.
Sure, he might have made the Flesh Fair more violent, or added more sex to
Rouge City, but the overall message would have been the same: fairy tales
can come true.
I think people no longer want fairy tales. They don't want to see happy endings
or completed missions, or Blue Fairies. They think that something must be
cold and unattached for it to be effective, ambiguous for it to be important.
Even Kubrick fans have gotten so caught up in their insistence upon the coldness
of his films, that they've ignored the real heart that some of his films possess.
The prime example would be Kubrick's final film, Eyes Wide Shut. Some
people praised it for its cold detachment, and while it is one of the best
films of recent years, it's anything but cold and detached. On the contrary,
I think it's one of the most moving love stories ever made. But even those
who praised it got it wrong.
So, I guess fairy tales are dead, and people don't want happiness in their
movies. I, for one, feel lucky to have been around for this one. I think,
like 2001: A Space Odyssey (which, by the way, was almost universally
panned upon its release), A.I. will only grow in stature with age.
Too bad, though...I'm glad I don't have to wait to appreciate its grandeur
and importance.
To both Kubrick and Spielberg, I say thank you, for no two filmmakers have
collaborated to more satisfying results than the men behind A.I.
-
I keep reading these commentaries on the ending and feel a need to chime in and offer some grist for the mill. I'll try and keep the spoilers down, but this will make more sense if you've seen the film. First, let's accept some ground rules: 1. Stanley Kubrick wanted Spielberg to direct A.I. Speilberg explains that in depth in "Stanley Kubrick, A Life in Pictures." 2. This is more Speilberg than Kubrick, and would have been quite different if Kubrick were still alive, but the shadow of Kubrick permeates almost every frame of the film. Call it a "Spielbrick" film, if it makes you happy. There are some choices made by Speilberg that Kubrick would not have liked, most notably using Robin Williams as Dr. Know and the on-screen presence of the robots at the end of the film. We never saw the aliens in 2001, and we shouldn't have seen the robots here. But that is the only flaw with the ending. All this talk about "failure" in the ending makes no sense to me. Does it fail because it's not cynical enough? Does it fail because David gets his wish, and we as an audience don't want that because we hate David as a character? Quite the opposite. David, like most Kubrickian men, is lost and alienated from the world he lives in. Like Alex in "A Clockwork Orange," he discovers that there is no one he can trust. He is a commodity, and a far darker message of children as commodities infuses all of A.I. (with David's realization of his lot in life being one of the most disturbing images put on a screen this year). Any examination of Kubrick must consider the continuing theme of the alienation of men in modern society and, in Clockwork and "Full Metal Jacket," how the need for acceptance drives them to alter their fundamental behavior in an attempt to win acceptance. David is a classic Kubrick male, cut off from what he needs and traveling that same road through betrayal to find some bit of happiness. In the end, he gets it, but what he gets is so fleeting as to almost be unfulfilling. It's interesting to note that Kubrick returns to his childhood home, New York City and Coney Island, offering a personal symbol of his own childhood as the end destination of David's travels. Considering all this, the end of the movie doesn't "fail," but rather remains consistent with the rest of the story and the body of Kubrick's work. Yes, Spielberg mucks it up with the robots on loan from Mission to Mars (thanks to the Talkbacker who made that observation). Yes, Ridley Scott's Blade Runner was more detailed. Yes, Kubrick would have wanted more depth of field in the shots. And yes, I groaned when I saw the ending of 2001 rearing its head, half-expecting David to look off screen and see an older version of himself eating salad. Fortunately, that doesn't happen. Something else happens, something that the Talkbackers who've decried the ending apparently haven't noticed: David cries. He's not programmed for that.
-
This is NOT a defense of the film. I repeat: THIS IS NOT A DEFENSE OF THE FILM. Since the thread originates with the statement "mixed bag of reviews from around the world," I find it necessary to say that this is not quite a true statement. Check out rottentomatoes.com. 70% of 89 reviews were positive. These are reviews from trades around the country. The well known critics and some lesser known critics. From San Francisco to New York. I don't know. I understand that there is a range from "hated it" to "loved it," but 70% liked it. That's not mixed to me. Yes, moviegoers will be split, but I don't see evidence of critics being split. Just basic math. AICN is still perplexing to me about their A.I. coverage. Lets keep it more journalistically sound. How about: audiences split (from what we know) and most critics have liked it? Am I missing a point here?
-
This film beautifully innertwined the styles of Kubrick and Spielberg, up until a somewhat overly sentimental ending. The ending took a little away from the movie's effect but not as much as many critics claim.
The visuals are great, Manhattan was an unforgetable sight.
Jude law deserves a best supporting actor nomination for his portrayal of Gigolo Joe.
This is the best movie that I have seen so far this year. -
This is sad to see, but i can empathize because i went through it with TPM. A lot of AI fans are in the same type of denial we Star Wars fans were in, unable to accept the failure of a movie we had such high expectations for. An obvious symptom is the reaching and rationalizing they do to defend the film. Don't worry, you will snap out of it sooner or later. Sadly for some it will be after the fourth or fifth time you've watched it. Suddenly you snap out of it, and you suddenly realize how much time and money you wasted because you were in a psychological state of denial.
To a previous post, yes people around me were laughing AT this movie, and many left early.
-
I will never have respect for Steven Spielberg again. This movie was so incredibly dull. Later.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- Whitney Houston 1963 - 2012 -- 439 total posts 159 posts
- WTF HOLLYWOOD: SOLARBABIES -- 144 total posts 142 posts
- Herc’s Seen Tonight’s Return Of THE WALKING DEAD!! Discuss Also DOWNTON ABBEY, FEAR FACTOR, PAN AM, ONCE, SIMPSONS, DYNAMITE, LUCK, SHAMELESS, BAIT CAR, THE GRAMMYS And More!! Sunday Is Sweeps Day 11!! -- 155 total posts 140 posts
- Avid Comic Reader Hercules Does Battle With Tedium During Kevin Smith’s COMIC BOOK MEN! -- 55 total posts 45 posts
- There's a STAR TREK video game that is going to lead into JJ's STAR TREK 2 apparently... -- 196 total posts 45 posts
- I am The Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day! No, I’m the Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day! -- 35 total posts 35 posts
- If the Behind the Scenes Pics of the Day drops her pen, pick it up, but don’t look at her legs or else it will be on your record. -- 60 total posts 34 posts
- New JUDGE DREDD post production footage pops up -- 127 total posts 32 posts
- To Commemorate The 3D Release Of STAR WARS EPISODE I: THE PHANTOM MENACE, George Lucas Wants You To Know...Greedo Shoots First!! -- 513 total posts 29 posts
- The Sensorties Revisit The Friday Docback (And Still Smell)!! DOCTOR WHO Story #7 Again, The Coming Of Season/Series 7, And More!! -- 118 total posts 27 posts