Cool News
A.I. Review
I am very much an eternal boy at heart. Very much a person that lost his mommy at the age of 11, and very much wanted her back.
My mom did not die in the dearly departed manner when I was 11, she died in my memory. I watched her for years disintegrate into an alcoholic self abusive monster of the image I once held sacred. And then years later she died in a mysterious fire on a bluff overlooking a lake in North Texas.
When it all fell apart at age 11, I prayed to God to turn her back… make her love Dad again. Make her be who she was again. Make everything right again. But for me, time marched on. After that week… after a few months… I came to know that I had lost the mother I once knew and had something new to handle and cope with.
That is the gift of humanity… adaptation… the ability to move on and let go. The ability to accept our lot in life and make the best of it.
A.I. (Artificial Intelligence) is about an Eleven year old boy frozen in time. He is Eleven. He is artificially intelligent, meaning he learns, but does not grow. He sees things, but was programmed to not understand them. He was not meant for emotional growth or mental maturing. He was built with a singular purpose… To Love That Which He Imprinted Upon. In this case Mommy.
Is this movie an exercise in cruelty?
Yes.
Is it a movie about masochistic devotion?
Yes.
Is it a great movie?
No.
Is it a terrible movie?
No.
Is it mediocre?
No.
What is it?
For me, A.I. is quite simply a very dry very cold fairy tale. It is as if Kubrick or Aldiss or Spielberg or whoever was the Stromboli of this feature, sat down and said, "What if Pinocchio could never be a real boy but believed he could?"
This is very much a fairy tale deconstruction in the same breath as HOOK, although for me, not nearly the failure that that film was. In HOOK, Spielberg’s premise of "What if Peter Pan grew Up?" well that was a premise that completely unhinged the film. It caused the film to lose all magic. It unraveled the fabric of NeverNeverland.
In A.I., the premise was far better explored. Not only could Pinocchio never ever grow up, but he existed in the cynical heartless world that we as a society are headed towards.
On November 11th, 1983… My mom picked me up at school to take me for a ride. I was told that I was going to SHOWBIZ PIZZA, but we went the wrong way. There was a man in the car, not my father. I was taken very far away from my home. I was taken to a place without movie theaters, without friends and without my parents. For my mom was not even that anymore. She had changed. Her accent, the look in her eye, the way she walked and she was entirely different and cruel and wrong. And I very much was a boy with a singular purpose.
Get back home. Get back with Dad. Now I knew there were no Blue Fairies for me. No simple solutions. The first thought was to kill this person claiming to be mom, but I didn’t, in fact I watched her die, and brought her back to life. There was one way to get out of the place I found myself in… Grow Up. Hit 18. Become my own person.
This is something that David (Haley Joel Osment) could not do. He was stuck, that powerless 11 year old. He was an 11 year old boy with no life experiences… No knowledge of how the world worked. He was a complete innocent built for one purpose. To love that which he imprinted upon.
Why does he become obsessed with the Blue Fairy? Because he believed the story his mother told him. He connected to the fairy tale, in the same sort of way that an eleven year old boy may imprint on RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK and decide to grow up to search for lost treasures…. Or that a boy watching STAR WARS may grow up to make science fiction movies. But he can’t grow up, he can’t give up the pretend… it is all that his emotional processors have given him to exist. Hope.
And when he has no more hope, he would end it all. But fate was weird and cruel and strange all at once. Was it contrived? Oh yes, all fairy tales are contrived.
The moment where David discovers his blue fairy and right up until the flash forward. Well, the movie was what I wanted it to be. A cruel and mean fairy tale… the type to scare children. A very Grim Fairy Tale indeed.
But then, well… the end for me was horrendous. Like so many modern Spielberg films, the man simply could not leave David there with his Blue Fairy praying for eternity. It was that moment where I wished that Tim Burton had handled the editing of this film. Because Burton would have left it there. Right there…
That was the perfect ending for this fairy tale. And quite fitting too. Spielberg’s ending very much is his scream for a happily ever after. And this was not that type of fairy tale. That ending was very very artificial.
This was meant to be a very sad fairy tale. That type for adults to learn from. The lesson? Artificial Love like real love is destined for heartbreak. People die, batteries run down and everything decays. Had the film ended with the narration telling us of the end of mankind, the ice age descending upon earth and life as we know it coming to an end. But that there on the bottom of the ocean frozen for all time is an artificial boy praying to be real, to an artificial dream. To be the last sentient being on Earth trapped in denial for all eternity….
That was a fairy tale ending for sure.
But Spielberg (circa 2001) could not do that. Spielberg (circa 1978) could have.
That is the evolution of our greatest pop-director. He could not be cruel and unsympathetic. He couldn’t leave the last boy, real or not, encased in ice and false hope for eternity.
And as I sat in that theater tonight, I knew that I would not see that ending, but for me… it is there.
This past week in Los Angeles I had many discussions about evergreen topics. What is the worst ending to the best movie you’ve seen? Now, while A.I. is not the best movie I’ve seen, it is the best movie with the worst ending I’ve ever seen.
To me, leaving David there on the bottom of the ocean isn’t a cruel thing, for that character… with that brain… that was the best possible ending. ETERNAL UNDYING HOPE. The greatest possible ending you could have. HOPE. Above and beyond any and all else at the end we must have HOPE. Instead, Steven attempted to give us some sort of "and now he can dream" ending which was just terrible.
Perhaps I embraced A.I. because I went in expecting this to be the worst film in creation. Expecting that I would be so mad I couldn’t make spit anymore. No, instead I listened to my Father talk about why he didn’t like the film… wrestling with the intangibles…
I listened to Johnny Wad beginning to hate the film as well. Me?
Maybe I was looking to like it too much…. Maybe I simply associated with the boy who lost his mom… Perhaps Spielberg still has my number.
And this night, when I was expecting the worst, that was a very good thing indeed.
After further thought on the film, I have these additional comments...
There are a couple of key statements made in the film that I find quite compelling. When the one lady at William Hurt's seminar at the beginning asks the question about whether or not a human could love something that it knows to be artificial... well, in a way... for quite a few people leaving the film, that's the key itself. We, as the audience of the film, are asked to love a toy... a complicated toy.... an amazingly complex toy that reacts badly to spinach.... And there are quite a few people on this earth that cannot love a toy. ME? I love toys, from the Green Lantern Lamp on my desk to the seemingly endless supply of toys about this room of mine. Each one with a story and a place in time where I dearly loved what it was that toy represents. But isn't that even an artificial love, I mean, what I really love is the moment that the toy represents, the idea that the toy reminds me of. Do I love the toy itself? Would I cry if it was destroyed, or purchase another?
Things that I love are my friends, my family and my city... Do I love objects? And ultimately, that is what David is... an object, not a real thing. Loving David is like loving a prostitute. There love is not real, no matter what the commercial tells you, because they do not have a choice in the matter. SO... if the artificial being is programmed to love, does that not in fact preclude the notion that it can not indeed love at all because love is not a programmed behavior, but a learned one?
Now then, the additional problem that some people seem to have is that the future is being depicted as Neon and lightcycles and Ministry. Must I point out that this is merely a segment of this world and not the entirety. Rouge City isn't The City Walk, it is a Vegas of the Future... that's why it has all the neon and 'family friendly exteriors. It isn't seedy, because seedy doesn't sell sex, seedy sells disease. And Disease is not marketable. As for the latex and plastic clothes... I may be wrong, but I do believe that only the robot characters had the latex clothing and plasticene clothing... David's owners did not. The scientists did not.
Why does David constantly refer to the Amphibacopter as the Amphibacopter? Because it is an Amphibacopter perhaps? I mean, when I fly to a place and people ask me about the flight, do I not comment about the plane, am I not allowed to call the plane what it is? Must I refer to it each time as something different. Like perhaps:
"The flying cigar landed in Los Angeles on time. The Death Chariot flew across the sky, but there was this cute chick aboard. Upon departing the metal sparrow, she dropped her purse, but right when I left the plane I handed it to her. She forced me into the cockpit of the gravity defying vehicle where we made passionate whoopee"
Now I do agree that the word "Amphibacopter" is an unwieldy word, it is a flying thing that can vertically take off, fly and go underwater.... therefore making it an Amphibacopter.
Also... why mention the Blue Fairy over and over? Well... could it possibly be because that is what David was searching for? Was he supposed to ask where Edith was? What is the Blue Fairy's real name? Meryl? Ms Streep? Well, yes, but we know that by reading the credits, not by reading Pinnochio.
How many times in THE WIZARD OF OZ with Judy Garland does Judy ask about Auntie Em and wanting to get back to Kansas? Are there not times where she is screaming at a red ball, "Auntie Em Auntie Em Auntie Em, oh , Auntie Em, I'm right here, Auntie Em!"
Now in a million years I'm not going to defend the ending, and I'm not saying that Kubrick didn't have anything to do with that hidieous ending. But I do know that that ending... no matter who thought of it.... was hidieous. Terrible. And wrong for me.
Kubrick does not have a history for doing that to me, but Spielberg does. I'm sure that the ending and the whole flash forward ending was in Kubrick's notes... but it could very well of wound up being an idea he would have abandoned upon one single look at it. However, Steven, in his rush to get through with the project and on to his next.... something that Stanley never did.... Well he stuck A.I. with a terrible ending that did not work for me at all.
Do I understand it? Um... given everything in the ending is underlined 4 times.... I'd like to think so.
And those are my additional thoughts
And later still I have more thoughts about it all....
The ending is happy because David is given the opportunity for Closure.... to say goodbye and have one last perfect day. Now sure, we know the mother was programmed for that day by the robot thingees, but David does not, so for his little artificial brain, he can be happy cuz he heard mommy say one last time and for the first time that she loved him, and that made him all warm and cuddily because now he knows that Mommy loved him last! Screw that!
I want the director that would put the Ark in a warehouse controlled by the government for all time. That put our hero in a Spaceship never to be reunited with his family again. That separates a boy and his best friend by way of a galaxy.... But like I said in that piece a couple of weeks back.... Spielberg isn't the same person anymore, nor do we have the right to ask him not to evolve. We may not like his inability to find his endings, and his seemingly unending desire to create films that pander to as many people as possible by having multiple climaxes when he couldn't choose just one.
But I have become so used to Steven screwing up the endings of his movies that while it bothered me, I enjoyed the rest of the film quite a bit.
As for what film would Kubrick of made? It is a useless question. Because we will never know. Fact is Steven made it, and it is his film now. He wrote it, he directed it and he had final say on it. So the ending is his, the film is his... and he had the ability to change anything he needed to change.
While the ending may not be HAPPY HAPPY, it is certainly HAPPIER than had David remained alive at the bottom of the ocean, through the ice ages never ceasing to pray to a false hope to make him real. And that ending is very clear in the film.
-
+ Expand All
-
People always know whether or not they liked a Spielberg movie, cuz we know how great he can be so anything that sucks really sticks out a mile. Moriarty hit the nail on the head with his review, everyone else is just rationalizing.
-
Jul 04, 2001 11:41:28 PM CDT
http://www.nytimes.com/library/film/071899kubrick-ai.html
by skeptic ogre
Read this article and you'll realize that the ending can't be blamed on Spielberg. It is Kubrick's ending. Unfortunately, Spielberg just didn't have the guts to say, "No disrespect, but your ending sucks." I would have ended it with David stepping out of the pod onto the ice, surrounded by dozens of copies of himself, meaning that his "brothers" in Dr. Hobby's lab took over the world after the humans died.
-
the film shouldve ended when he *spoiler* finally found the statue of blue fairy. the whole alien bullshit, and resurection of his mom was a terrible ending. when i walked outta the film, i saw some friends about to go see it, and i told them not to, and they didnt. haley joel and jude law were very good though. and am i the only person in the world that liked pay it forward? anybody else out there like it?
-
To say that the ending to this film is a happy Spielberg-like ending is only to look at the surface. In reality, the ending to this film is extremely sad and depressing. The advanced A.I.'s lie to David about bringing his mother back, and they creat a faux Monica. So, David has his ONE day with her and then she DIES. What happens if and when David wakes up? Will he just never long for her. If he does wake up, he will be forever without her. If he doesn't, then he is essentially dead. So, in the end, everyone dies or will long to eventually.
Don't judge a book by its cover. -
David is happy! Because he's eleven, he doesn't grasp that everything around him is artificial. For the first time in his life, he fits in. His mother was only an incantation of his memory of her, because she never loved him in life, just in his mind. The house, his mother, even maybe Teddy - was all fake. The last real thing we see is the Ben Kingsley advanced robot. Leaving David praying could have hope, but this end to me was much colder. This was an artificial happiness the likes of which every other character in the film was either getting or giving. Each robot was made to serve and fill holes in peoples lives. But it was fabricated filler. David's mom didn't love him, just like Jude Law said, she loved what he did for her. The ending was nowhere near happy and in Kubrick's original story outline it ended with David watching his mother dissolve away, which is more definite. My mother saw the film and I asked her what she thought of the ending and she said she liked it because it was happy. It depends on the person, but really, it was as cold as the rest of the story, and twice as cruel. The audience should know this, but David can remain blissful in his ignorance. Also, in Kubrick's original the father was there and he was less personified, and the sibling was nonexistant, his room just an empty void in the house. So it was all from David's own perception - just him and his mommy. And did anybody see the book his mother was reading when he walked in on her in the bathroom? "Freud's Women" Other people have posted to the Freudian correlation in A.I - but it is by no means a Spielbergified happy ending, it was just less definite than Kubrick's. And Brian Aldiss' story was a mere fraction of the film's narrative, and much less a Pinnochio tale as Kubrick had envisioned it. A.I is sad and sometimes cruel, but in it's themes realistic. Only another robot can be truly happy with artificially produced bliss - especially if he's not capable of knowing the difference.
-
I thought the fact that robots were creating humans at the end of the film was sooo delightfully ironic. A great twist. The only thing I hated in A.I. was Dr. Know.
-
Harry, I appreciate your opinion of this film. I believe it be a masterpiece. A cold fairy tale is the correct label, albiet a superficial one. That is why I believe it to be the perfect melding of Kubrick and Speilberg. These are two diametrically opposed artists, in world view and asthetic. Emotion vs. Analytical thinking. That is the whole idea behind this movie. Are we programmed by a higher being to love, just as the mechas are in this story? By the time the story is through, humanity (as proxied by the mother character) had reversed roles with the mechas. We were constructed to fulfill their need to be loved. Was the mother really feeling these feelings, or was she programmed by the advanced mechas of the future? Is this a happy ending or an unsettling notion about what we call " humanity" and "emotion"? It asks the question," Why do we need love? Who has made us need love?"
-
Harry what I will never understand is how you could even begin to digest this movie as something something close to positive. Well actually you don't say if it is good or bad really. You just do your usual talking about yourself and your relation to the movie rather than any actual analyzation of the film itself. Why? I mean if I am bothering to read your thoughts you could at least go as far to put some in about the film. I know you're a son of speilberg. Many are. But don't you have any qualms with things beyond the ending? How about that it never suceeds as a fairy tale or a sci-fi story. That it there is no reason, unless you happen to have some way to relate to the characters situation, do you care about the robot David. I felt no emotion for this character and the only thing that kept me from walking was the hope that Teddy would pop in and say something amusing. I felt more for teddy and the mecha nanny than all the other characters as a whole. Jesus Christ Harry when was the last time you had a review that wasn't in some way wishy washy and two dimensional? What happened to you pushing the small good projects into the spotlight and letting the Hollywood bigshots spin their own wheels? I don't understand your mindset when it comes to watching films. It seems like almost anything can tickle your fancy and it comes off as fake.
-
Spielberg describes himself as 'an independent working in Hollywood', but in my opinion he is a slave to that most important of hollywood ideals, the happy ending. He has to dictate the emotion he thinks the audience should be feeling, rather than having faith in our ability to feel for ouselves. Even Saving private ryan had to have a sappy tacked on coda. The group hug at the end of schindler's list.I haven't seen sugarland express, but apparently he said of that movie's grim ending, 'I realised then that a happy ending could result in much bigger grosses'. Usually yes, not necessarily resulting in a better film though.
-
Jul 04, 2001 11:50:58 PM CDT
HOW ABOUT A FRIGGIN SPOILER WARNING NEXT TIME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
by bigdawgkris
You pride yourself on having no spoilers in you reviews, but this takes the cake!! you straight up told us that David ends up at the bottom of the lake... now, granted, it's hard to talk about how horrible an ending is without giving it away... but you've been doing this for a while, surely you've done it before... thanks alots... from one Cloudmaker who hasn't seen it yet... I'm hurt...
-
But then, Kubrick supposedly spent years trying to get the ending of Eyes Wide Shut right. So even if he had originally written the ending that way, there's no guarantee that it'd be the same if he'd lived long enough to make the film himself. Spielburg took the credit for the script, he can take the blame...
-
Jesus. 12 hours of happyness after 2000 years and then it's over and he dies. The mecha feel sorry for him and basically do a mercy killing, after trying to talk him out of his quest. Yeah... feel good hit of the summer! Just because the narrator describes the events pleasantly you think it's a happy ending?
-
Has anyone ever explained what the hell all that Jeanine Salla stuff was about? Seems to me that very little of that crap was stuff that actually pertained to the events of the movie. I guess it was all just a stupid marketing thing.
-
Thats all i want to say to you, bravo!:)
Harry strikes back with again a great but small and simple raview.
Well i am not going to lie, i wanted harry to write the biggest positive review of a.i to date! Well I didn't get that, i got a positive review...thats ok, thank you harry for making my day!:)
Untill now i had my eyes closed and never thought of the truth, that a.i has an ending thats just not there...maybe the movie is great, maybe its the best movie of the year but the ending is not. Thanks Harry for making me understand that i was wrong and some times perfect movies have unprerfect endings!:)
Kubrick is dead!
Long Live the king! -
Harry, please reflect on your opinion that this is a happy ending and respond to it in a few days if you can. How could the fact that:1) humanity is extinct in two thousand years,2) mechas of the future are "JurasicPark"ing are asses to soothe their own robot ancestors, and 3) David's " mother" is saying things like" I love you" when we all know she was programmed to say it by the future mechas, make you think this was a happy ending? It may have seemed happy to David, but we are all in BIG TROUBLE!!!
-
Superbud actually has a point, the end naration is actually ironic...why didn't you get that harry?
-
after reading the other posts it seems that spielber did not tack on the ending, but it was kubrick's all along. Having said that i suspect that their 2 styles will not complement eachother. we'll see.
-
You know, I hated that ending as much as anyone else. But does that mean that it ruined the entire experience for me as a whole? Hell no! It was the most thought provoking and intelligent film I've seen all year (well, except for 'Memento') and it is definitely the best damn movie of the summer. I realized that all of the people that I had spoken to about the movie didn't quite know what to make of it. I've had numerous discussions with people about the story and about what responsibility or loyalty would we as human beings have to a child who was never real to begin with. Almost a week has gone by since that sneak preview of the film on Thursday night and I still find myself talking about it. I still find people wanting to chime in with their thoughts on the film... and that says something. The movie hasn't left me,... I'm still here thinking about it even as I type. Does it have it's flaws? Of course. It isn't a perfect film, it's flawed... but it's different. It tries hard not to play by the rules and it almost succeeds up until the last 20 minutes of running time. But I can live with that.
-
So this was basically a movie about selfishness. How touching. The love this kid wants is of the selfish variety, he wants to feel complete and can't do it without the love of another. This is why legions of college girls allow people like me to perform acts of sexual deviancy upon them. His "Mom" didn't earn his love; she was just around when he was imprinted. The best line of the movie was where Jude Law said something about how his Mom needs him because of how he makes her feel (or something to that effect - I was waging a struggle of Biblical proportion with the Sandman by this point) and that is the same exact reason that the kid wants her love, justification of his own existence. The end of his voyage should have had him realize he didn't need her love to be a real person, then this would have been a good commentary about parent-child relationships and growth as a person. Instead it was jizunk. Probably the worst movie I've seen since The Pledge. And for reference I saw Battlefield: Earth in the interregnum.
-
I HATE THESE FUCKING POP-UPS!!!!!!!!!!!!HARRY, DITCH THE POPUPS MAN.I HAVE YOUR PAGE AS MY HOME PAGE,ITS REALLY ANNOYING. maybe i'll ask the blue fairy to make them go away
-
Has anyone read Roger Ebert's review? It brings up some interesting points. Let's think about this for one moment. David is a robot child who is programmed to love, but contrary to what the tagline says, his love isn't real. He is still a machine who lives by the artificial rules burned into his program, so how can his love be real? A computer does not understand what it is doing, it simply knows what and when to do it. It is programmed as such. So how can we as flesh and blood truly connect to something that doesn't really love you? Teddy is a perfect example of this. He is a manufactured toy that thinks and lives like a sentient being... but he is still a toy. Any child can love a favorite toy, but can it love him back? Nope. No way. It doesn't understand the human concept of love. There are no real emotions in there for it to do so. David is not human, therefore he cannot love. Whether the parents love him back is a totally different story. Do we surrender those emotions to a machine or do we treat it as such. The only time during this film where we get a sense of David becoming more 'human' is when he begins his quest for the Blue Fairy. Professor Hobby says that David learned desire on his own, that it wasn't a part of his program but an independant thought no one could have predicted. The film could even have ended with David becoming more human than us. But that's just my opinion... what's yours?
-
And easily the best thing to come out of Hollywood this year. I agree with Harry about the ending - it was Spielbergian - however, I don't know if I'd classify it as "happy". It's not an unhappy movie because the humans are dead (those of you who've been saying that that's what makes it a sad ending clearly are having trouble understanding that the humans are not our heroes), it's an unhappy ending because of the REAL tragic hero of the story ... Teddy. David is to Teddy what Monica is to David. That final shot of the three of them on the bed, with David holding Monica, finally loved, even if it's only for one day ... it sent chills up my spine. And not the good kind. Because there's Teddy, standing at the foot of the bed, looking at David the way David looks at Monica. And he doesn't get his happy ending. Teddy is a toy to David, just like David is a toy to Monica. And that's all he is. And in the end, he loses. That's why I walked out of the film sad. By the way, go back and take a look at the AI online website game again if you haven't since you saw the movie. A lot of things become clearer and it becomes even more ingenius than it was before.
-
Well... finally.
Harry reviews A.I. I had seriously considered joining the side wondering how much Universal paid him to give his review of The Fast and the Furious, the most cliched movie I have ever had the mis-opportunity of seeing.
Strange now that the July 4th movie season has opened that he has posted his review of A.I. while the world waited since last week to hear from it.
And in the end, having seen it myself....
I saw it with three other people and we all walked away seeing a different film.
I have seen the ending interpreted variously by different people.
So far I have put them into three categories:
1) The creatures were aliens, doing a dig on earth
2) The creatures were super-mechas looking for evidence of their god (humans)
3) It was all a dream of David as he attained self-awareness through the journey he took
Most stuff I've read leads to #2.
But is the ending happy? I don't know. Some people thought David died next to his mother and others thought he was just dreaming for the first time. For those that thought the entire last act was a dream anyway, he just fell back into the state he was in.
I think the movie was more about what the feeling of love is more than who or what is feeling it. Are our emotions any more real than David's? This did movie not manipulate how we felt afterwords? What does that say about us?
What got me thinking was the end (spoiler ahead.... I warned you in the title).....
Where David's mother comes back, but just for one day. For my brother, that came across as contrived. But I knew that Spielberg wasn't an idiot, and neither was Kubrick. I ended up talking to a friend of mine who said he saw that as a fairy tale reference (the movie being a fairy tale told by the future super-mechas that took the shape of Cybertronic's logo). There is this Jewish legend (fairy tale) about a Golem or magical creature that seemed to be related to the appearance of the mother at the end of the film.
That small piece of legent led me to look at the whole film closer. I am not going to say it was a perfect film. It had it's flaws. But I think the flaws have been open to debate. No film in recent memory has evoked so much discussion in people around me.
The movie requires thinking ouside the box. Most people I have known who didn't like it or get it, weren't capable of that. Which isn't anything negative to say about them, because I think they are wonderful people, but the movie demands to be looked at in detail.
Harry, I am also adopted and felt the same thing, however, I think both you and your father have missed the depth of the final act.
I myself was wanting the movie to end at the ferris wheel, but I kept pushing.... WHY did it continue to the final act. Spielberg is not an idiot, which I think too many people have dismissed as a reason for the final act.
Maybe in the end we find in the film what we find true about how we feel about ourselves or the reality we have set ourselves in.
I myself won't have final thought until I see the movie another time. I am still discussing the film with friends and the sharing is what I am finding the most amazing about the film. It's not so much what I found out about the film, but how others reacted to it and how their own person lives, emotional state, personality, knowledge of history and other cultures, etc.... bled into their opinions of the film.
Not everyone is going to like this film, I've dealt with that. But being aware of the higher elements of the subtext has made me aware that most people will miss what this movie is trying to say. That's neither good nor bad, and maybe the ultimate purpose of the movie... to provoke these discussions and questions.
My final review will probably be far down the road after I have had time to see the movie enough times and discuss it without enough people who have influenced my thoughts and reactions to the movie and the subtext.
Mr.Z
-
I am haunted by A.I. I've seen it twice, and I felt melancholy each time as I left the theatre, as well as in my memory of the film. I think it was definitely an imperfect film. I thought the flesh fair seemed like a different film-space, a different universe (like the universe of Mad Max or something) - though I appreciated the need for that element in the story.
After thinking about it, feeling about it, and discussing it, I now feel that David did grow, evolve, change. This is evident in his angry outburst in Man-hattan at the other David - in essence the development of an ego is demonstrated via the appearance of the ego function of taking/claiming individual space through anger. And so, I imagined that David grew, and that, even though he remained a machine, he did become a "real boy", because somewhere/somehow along the way he gained a spirit, an independent, fluid sense of self, a flame, something non-mechanical that would go on burning.
This is also evident to me in that after his day with mother, he is content and gains the ability to dream and perhaps the ability to self-sooth. The ability to dream may indeed have spiritual implications (read Carl Jung), and further, had David not evolved, I believe he would have been forever trapped in his feelings of abandonment.
I must return to why I was haunted by the film. I get that I identify with David in his search for "mommy", and although I never lost my Mom as overtly, I was abandoned by my father. I think I resonate with David's authenticity, his ability to be authentic and vulnerable at all times rather than defended and hiding his emotions. It was interesting to me that I didn't much like anyone in the film with the exception of David. I think this is because David was the only 'authentic' character in the film, the only character outwardly authentic in feeling/emotion, the only one without a hidden agenda or in need of hiding true feeling (aside from the other mecha's, accept they didn't feel).
I wondered about an ending with David locked for eternity before the statue of the blue fairy, and somehow such an ending felt empty to me, somehow incomplete. Perhaps such an ending would have worked with sufficient narration/voice-over. I also thought that the ending with the meta-mecha's (who the first time through I imagined to be aliens), to be a little too 'quick', or too easy, yet parts of that ending worked for me.
Finally, I thought it was nice to be given one day of Mom, one perfect day. What a dream. Perhaps that's where I resonate with David the most. What I would give for a perfect loving day with the parent I was abandoned by (my father), just one. How healing that would be, to be able to remember it, to draw on it for comfort. -
Jul 05, 2001 12:55:08 AM CDT
Hey... question regarding the "Ultra-Mechas" in the third act...
by llghtst0rmer
I've finally decided to stop wanting to argue with everyone that they're aliens, but... can somebody give me a reason WHY? Where is it said they're actually latest-generation mechas and not beings from another planet? I mean, didn't Kingsley's mecha say to David, "you are the last piece of evidence of the people that created you?" (Or words to that effect.) I don't want to argue about it, I would just like to know how I came to the wrong conclusion.
-
First off, it is NOT a happy ending. The wish fulfillment is empty and only serves to drive home the point that sometimes dreams DON'T come true the way we want them to. Secondly, aside from a little "too much information" technobabble about space-time blah blah, the Ben Kingsley voiced future mecha is crucial to the entire meaning of the movie in my eyes. Yes, its a futuristic fairy tale. But not just because the movie takes place in the future. It's futuristic because when the mecha at the end speaks in that voice, you have to realize that it is not simply the same voice for the narrator and the mecha. It's the same CHARACTER, who has been telling this story the whole time. A.I. is a fairy tale (whether the events were supposed to be "real" or not,) as told by a ROBOT. Since it's a fairy tale, certain things (such as wolf-cycles and moon-ships) can be taken for what they are... fantastic embellishment. Pleasure Island wasn't just a dinky town and Monstro wasn't just a run-of-the-mill whale. But this is a story as conceived and perceived entirely from a robot's point of view, as if the future mecha was telling this story by a campfire. That's what made this movie so different to me, and it's what made the ending work. If he got stuck under the ferris wheel and the movie had ended, it wouldn't be any more innovative than "D.A.R.Y.L." or "Not Quite Human," it would simply be a far superior film of the same genre. But revealing the whole point of the storybook narration and also leaving the question of "was mommy actually a 24-clone with a soul or was it a fake representation?" pushed this film to another level. Spielberg has made ONE movie even close to this before from a style standpoint, and that's his Director's Cut of "Close Encounters." I think this is his most involved movie by far, and even if I still think of "Jaws" and "Raiders" as better movies, I don't think he's ever had a film with such style and mood before. It was probably the Kubrick influence. And Teddy was the greatest. "Are you taking me to David?" So don't bag on the ending on the first viewing. See it again, think about it knowing what you now know, and let time be the marker of this film's greatness. Classic.
-
but thats not the point of this talkback. i just want to tell harry that his review was the best review i've read of the film. and that's unbiased because i usually hate his reviews.
-
This is a cold fable that really doesn't flow like a mainstream film. I think it's safe to say that this movie isn't for everybody. I have friends who had a hard time understanding it and they kept complaining about tiny irrelevant things instead of wrapping their minds around the bigger picture and the deeper meanings within it. I heard people calling up a local radio station with negative reviews that were totally off the mark. "The movie was stupid and that Joe guy kept dancing all the time",... yeah, I know. This movie is seriously not for them.
-
Reasons for the creatures at the end being super-mechas:
They have taken the form of the company logo.
David drew a picture of a bird early on in the film, which his 'brother' described as a peacock, but it was really the Cybertronic company logo.
He didn't remember it, but it was imprinted. If the super-mechas were ancestors of David, they have evolved to resemble 'their creator', just as some of believe we are made in the form of our creator: God.
Those who believe in religion are always looking for their creator, just as David is, just as his future ancestors are.
Is his story part of their bible? A link to their history and beginning?
Although the creatures seem very alien, they do resemble the Cybertronic logo. They have evolved to this need that is persistent in our culture: seeking the creator.
I am not sure if this will totally answer your question, but it is my interpretation of the movie.
Mr.Z
-
but I'd rather wait
til August. J&SBSB....
coming....soon....
A.I. is an overrated piece
of junk.
http://www.angelfire.com/rant/MrE
(blantant advertising) -
Ok, listen. This site USED to be a great source for not just the fanboy stuff, but for small, independent films too. It gets tiring how many reviews can get posted for one movie (usually one Harry has a bug up his ass for), or the slightest, most insignificant morsel of info regarding Star Wars, LOTR, SpiderMan, etc. OH MY GOD HERE IS A PIC OF THE LOTR KEY GRIP EATING A SANDWICH!!!!! Who fucking cares. Anyway, I happened to see one of the year's best films last night, one that moved me like I haven't been in a long time, and one that will roll around in my brain for days as I try to process it all. It's call The Pricess and the Warrior. It so happens it's the new flick Tom Twyker and Franka Potente, the director and Star of Run Lola Run. I believe most people dig that film, at least for it's incredible style. So why the hell is it that there has only been one very slight review on this movie, mixed in with reviews of several others? How about a little attention to incredible small and/or foregn films that deserve to be seen and can have a profound effect on you rather than just whatever the lastest comic book wet dream is?? Seriously, get off you Final Fantasy-waiting asses and go see something deep and enriching....oh yeah, but DON"T expect another Lola. You can feel the similar themes, but it's much deeper, complex, and emotional. Twyker is very raidly proving himself to be a major young talent, and Franka has a screen presence that you just cannot stop watching her. Please, do yourselves the favor.
-
...for some of the typos in my previous post. I am REALLY fucking stoned right now (to help me forget that this is my wretched country's birthday. Whoopdie Fucking Doo).
-
don't get me wrong. this is one of the best movies of recent years in my opinion. but did anyone else notice a lot of similarities between a.i. and eyes wide shut? both followed a wizard of oz like plot as well as numerous other similarities. this leads me to believe that kubrick was writing down ideas for both films at the same time. when he died, he had not had a chance to organize his notes for a.i. seeing as he had just completed eyes wide shut. i think spielberg got a hold of these notes and made a film from them hence many similarities between the two films. just a theory.
-
It was like an original Grimm's fairy tale. Ever read the ones before they became Disneyfied over the years? They were horrifying in many ways. Not all endings were happy and neither was A.I.'s. Despite David's ultimate reunion, his happiness at seeing his mother is infused with a feeling of dreadful anticipation. Personally, I didn't care which director influenced the ending and that was the magic of it for me. Still, I liked your review Harry and your overall impression was well thought out and came from a deeper place than you usually let yourself go. Oh and Harry, I'm so very sorry about your mom.
-
I also appreciated the actual ending of A.I. I got a greater sense of loneliness from his resurrection than I would have had from his remaining frozen. While that is a poetic finish, it lacks the balls to draw a conclusion. I saw a robot child who longed to be a real boy in a world devoid of humans. I saw a director recreating scenes from his earlier films (that closet scene remind anyone of E.T.?) to unmask the sequence as an illusion, a recreation--a staging. And the final shot: old poetic convention of sleep, of dreams, as Death. Yes, it is maudlin. All those who take the death option for the ending know that it fulfills the Pinocchio story. When a robot finally becomes a 'real boy,' real boys must some day die.
-
I fell in love with this film from start to finish, having only yet viewed it on the opening night. I agree with the talkbacker who described it as "haunting" and "melancholy", and this is, in my opinion, furthered by the film's conclusion, as opposed to the proposed "ferris-wheel" conclusion. The ending of this film dug its way inside of me, exposing my own fear and confusion of the after-life, or even an ever-lasting life (who wants to live forever?). The fact that the film ends open-ended (is david dying, or just sleeping for the first time? does teddy endure an eternity waiting at the bedside?) makes my mind search for a closure it can never attain. While the ferris-wheel ending would have left David perpetually unfulfilled, it would have satisifed several critics,apparently (myself excluded). But the ending concludes with David's fulfillment (or does it?), while leaving the audience (or maybe i'd better just speak for myself)with doubts and anxiety. It's as if Spielberg held the carrot in front of David, only to turn it on the audience, almost to ask "So, how does it feel to YOU?". I don't know Kubrick, and I can't speculate what his wishes would be, but I commend Spielberg for creating a film that gnaws at me and attempts to extract my "authentic" feelings and emotions. Take it, leave it, or talk shit about it, but this is what i loved about this film.
-
I don't know; I rather liked the ending. I honestly think this is a movie that will have to be revisited in a few years before I come to any final conclusions. But I'm definitely getting the DVD, regardless.
-
...I did read that NY Times article. Whoever found it - thanks! Now, I'd just like to weigh in on the Ferris Wheel ending and why I think it's better. Remember William Hurt's character (forgot his name - David's creator) said to David in Manhattan that to be human was to hope for something you could not have? Fading out on David wishing endlessly to the Blue Fairy to be made into a real boy... well, there is David hoping, wishing, DREAMING and thereby, in one sense, becoming a real person. I think that is terribly thought-provoking and moving. The ending with the future robots essentially serves only to hammer this down. Maybe a mixing of the two would've made us all happy: David wishing dissolves to him dreaming of him with his mother...FADE OUT. I dunno. By the way, the future robots look just like the out-of-focus silhouette of David when he is first introduced to Monica. At least I think.
-
Jul 05, 2001 2:36:44 AM CDT
AI is a compelling work that has some weak points but overall is
by mark
I officially declare Moriarty a *wiener* for ripping this film. Sure, nobody is perfect - the wolfhead bikers were cheesy to be sure. But I think Spielbrick really came through and made a great film that probes very deep, SF themes. With all the garbage cranked out of Hollywood lately, we *need* more films like this, period.
But, being an audio engineer, I was disappointed in the audio mix. I think the main reason that the Dr. Know segment fell flat was because Robin Williams talks so fast and his voice was mixed too low to be understandable. But then again, that may have been a projection problem - I noticed at the showing I saw, most of the audio was coming from the center channel in the middle of the screen and almost nothing from the surrounds. But like I said, that may have been the fault of the theater I saw it in. -
This movie is not so much a fairy tale of a robot wanting to be human as much as it is an analysis of mankind's depreciation of love. In the opening sequence, David's creator is not waxing rhapsodically on the effects of love on the human spirit, he is pushing love as a MARKETING TOOL to his engineering staff, essentially saying, "A robot boy who can actually love - we'll sell a million of these babies!" The company is not manufacturing robots to assist in the devastation the rest of the world has suffered in the post-global warming catastrophe; the company is manufacturing pleasure robots for the consumption of rich Americans. In fact, no one in this future America seems very concerned at all with the rest of the ravaged world- the only "dissidents" we see are the robot-hating Flesh Fair organizers, who are themselves SELLING TICKETS to an entertainment spectacle revolving around hatred and violence. In other words, humanity is too self-absorbed to help itself in a time of great need. The advanced AI's we meet at the end, however, GET IT- David's happiness is their greatest concern, outweighing even their own historical curiosity. The AI's have developed the compassion that humanity never embraced. This lack of compassion is a common theme in Kubrick's movies, from the court-martial in PATHS OF GLORY, to Alex's culture and government in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE, to the actions of the secret society members in EYES WIDE SHUT. I believe this is partly why Kubrick was so attached to this story (he mulled it over for almost a quarter-century!): A.I. is Kubrick's most blatent assertion that humanity is doomed if it cannot learn to love and value love. What happened to humanity at the end of the film? Well, it's easy to forget in the post-cold war world, but in the '70's and '80's (when Kubrick started work on this film), there was quite a bit of well-publicized scientific analysis about the possible effects of nuclear war. One of the more accepted theories was that the post-apocalyptic nuclear winter would trigger an ICE AGE that would last for several thousand years. So, in A.I., mankind lacks the compassion to save itself from self-inflicted catastrophe (the movie's "present"), then commits mass suicide in an orgy of nuclear violence (between acts two and three). This is precisely why the third act (the much-referred to "terrible ending") is so essential to the story Kubrick wanted to tell. Furthermore, nothing that happens after David is awakened by the AI's takes place in any real setting- it's a simulation that the robots create, virtual reality inside David's robot head. Clue: the robots speak English in David's house, when before they used their own (subtitled) language. They take advantage of David's limited knowledge of human biology (remember, David didn't even know that a human would be in danger of drowning if dragged underwater) to convince him that human hair contains DNA. (This is such a well-known scientific fact that it is impossible to assume that Kubrick or Spielberg would not have known or discovered it in the 25 years it took for story development; Kubrick in particular was known for his perfectionist fact-checking) In essence, they tell a boy (not only is he a FAKE human boy, he is essentially an immature and uneducated REAL future AI boy) a story about his mother coming back to life that he will believe even more than Pinnochio (partly because this story is told to his brain, not his ears), because that will finally bring him happiness. At the end, David believes he is a real boy right down to the core, and he cries. Folks, he wasn't made with tear ducts! This is his future-robot provided fantasy! They make him into a real boy in the only reality that matters to him- his own. Much of Kubrick's earlier work explored the themes of love and compassion by showing situations and people devoid of these emotions. And although Kubrick was too pessimistic to portray humans exhibiting these characteristics in any quantity, this film was his chance to show human nature as he thought it should be, his societal "perfect world". I believe this is the reason that he sought out Spielberg to direct this picture: Kubrick was not very experienced at portraying optimistic emotional viewpoints on film, while Spielberg has proved to be quite adept at using cinema for uplifting, emotional purposes. From what I have read about him, Kubrick was a warm, kindhearted man who made strong friendships with a great many people and loved his family very much. His dark themes explored the elements of human nature which disgusted him: greed, self-absorbtion, vanity, etc. This was his most direct message to mankind, I believe: LOVE! LOVE, PEOPLE, LOVE OR YOU'LL ALL DIE! and I believe that Spielberg stuck as close to Kubrick's vision as well as anyone could expect him to. My only problem with Spielberg's telling of this story is that he used to many big-name actors ("Hey! That's Robin Williams!" is a distracting thought when you're trying to become absorbed by a film). All in all, I thought the film was quite masterful, and much more of a Kubrick film than anyone gives it credit for being. A fine homage from Steven Spielberg, in the spirit of and dedicated to his friend and collaborator Stanley Kubrick.
-
Okay, now I'm reading all the posts and my mind is abuzz... the "happy ending" was fabricated, Monica was programmed, and now it grows on me. Other things come to mind: David falls into a pool with his (human) brother and his brother is rescued by his parents. At the end, David plunges into the Manhattan water and is rescued by... Gigolo Joe. Joe then says something to him that I don't understand. "I am. I was." or something like that. Whoever's seen it multiple times, can you verifiy what he says? David is, of course, programmed to love. So his love isn't real... BUT it does provoke other things. Like anger, hope, dreams. The other mechas do what they are programmed and are happy. David, programmed to love, is so very sad. And what's with the control room guy at the flesh fair? He scanned his "daughter" with the mecha detector thingy. He doesn't know his daughter is a mecha? He does, and that's why he wants to save David? Are the Cybertronics people sending other child mechas out? At the end, we see the David and Arlene (?) boxes. Was she an Arlene? I guess I liked this movie a lot more than I thought. As for who's fault the ending is... well, apparently Kubrick conceived it. But Speilberg had final cut. And we should all know that stories are good or bad for what's in them as well as for what's NOT in them. As I think about it more, I'm beginning to like the like the not-so-happy "happy" ending... but like it or not it is Speilberg's film and he is to blame.
-
Thank you for your poignant observations. While I am very highly educated, I often miss making the types of thematic connections that you pointed out. I also liked what another talkbacker said about the entire movie being narrated by the future AIs (Ben Kingsley). It just makes everything that much more profound. I agree that people will be studying this movie for many years to come.
-
Another clue that the 3rd act was all in David's head was in the transport vehicle that the future AIs were travelling in: the way it flew apart as soon as the last one stepped off.
-
I think one of the questions that is asked is what makes love real. just because it is programmed into us, (for us genetically, for David Swinton, electronically). Does that make it false? All throughout the beginning of the movie, we see David curiously following his foster mother, tagging along, playing games. She finds this annoying, even disturbing at first, but then he grows on her. When she imprints him, that only takes his already incipient hold on her and makes it stronger. I think, by the time she abandons David, she really does love him. She abandons him because she fears she might lose everything, her husband (he'd leave her if she did anything else) or her child (who keeps on putting David into situations that endanger them both.), and David (who if she didn't abandon him, would be destroyed for sure.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As for the ending, I believe the problems with it are more technical than conceptual. If Spielberg had written it more tightly, and removed some of the more obvious narration, I think it would have worked better. -
The idea that the robots were lying to David and gave him a day with a robot mommy is the perfect ending. It may have been Spielberg's intention to leave it open ended, but I wish he had the guts to make it more blatant that he was actually spending a day with a robot. It's not a bad idea to leave things enigmatic when most of the possible interpretations are interesting. But the idea that David was spending a day with a clone who's memories were lifted from the air somehow is terrifyingly silly. Given that Spielberg lays on the sentimentality so thick it's easy to think that the scene was supposed to be completely sincere. It's tough not to think of what Kubrick would have done. I know he thought Spielberg would make it great, but the dude was never perfect. He would have made a better film. Spielberg tries hard but he miscalculated in so many ways. Like the narration, which should have been used more sparingly. And focusing more on making a sci-fi themed fairy tale rather than a straight sci-fi movie. It would have been more interesting if there had been a fusion of the two... it was certainly possible in the film. I felt that the film was crying out for it. Why make a film that speculates that the world's costal cities are flooded and humans now need cheap labor from AIs to survive, then make the science so shoddy (the boy is ruined by eating spinach but he can be submersed in water to no ill affect). I can only assume that Spielberg didn't think it was important in a fairy tale to have a certain degree of logic. The film was SO full of fascinating ideas, and it just makes the way Spielberg executed the whole thing so frustrating.
-
Hate to have to do this, Harry, but I disagree with how you think the movie should end. If I were seeing that movie all over again not knowing what to expect, if I saw the ending like that, not only would I feel so sad for this poor boy, I'd feel like the movie was incomplete. I would expect better from Spielberg. Because you're not supposed to leave this movie crying tears of sorrow; it's supposed to be tears of joy that David finally found what he was looking for, or else it just wouldn't be a fairy tale. And there are still gripping sad parts after your proposed ending that help make this movie what it is. Ending A.I. with David praying for 2000 years is like ending Cliffhanger with Stallone hanging off a cliff, and we don't want that.
-
I really, REALLY want to like the ending too, but I just can't honestly say, "its a good ending"...not so much for its content or what it has to say..but rather for how it was done. I like to be challenged and to have my thoughts provoked...but I don't think its movie making genius to make an ending that so many people "don't get". To me its laziness. Its left TOO open, to the point where people will theorize and interpret the ending a million different ways with really never having a chance to have those theories validated..its it a great script if its so vague that nobody really knows for sure what the point of it was??
I don't care whose idea the ending was, it was just done very poorly and it felt very contrived.
I agree with one of the first talkbackers..I like this movie b/c almost a week after I've seen it, I'm still thinking about it, trying to make sense of it all.
oh yeah, to all those morons who think the robots at the end were aliens...you have no right to review or talk about this movie..you are idiots. Later Hats. -
Remember, there are tons of people who don't get "2001" either, and that's over 30 years old. Yet it's considered a masterpiece...EVEN BY PEOPLE WHO DON'T UNDERSTAND IT!!! You can't tell me every person that voted for "2001" on the AFI top 100 list "got the point" of that movie. A lot of that was reputation voting from people who saw it once and were utterly confused by it. Hell, I didn't understand half of it myself until the 3rd or 4th time I saw it.
-
Sorry.
-
(But then if you read the review, it's been spoiled already.) My take on the ending of A.I. is that it's more of a parallel to the audience's relationship to the movie. I will say that about 2 hours into the movie, when David was stuck at the bottom of the ocean, forever praying to the Blue Fairy, and the camera was pulling back from him, I sat biting my hand, thinking, "Oh, my God! This is the end of the movie, isn't it? They're gonna leave him at the bottom of the freakin ocean, aren't they?" Then there were another 20 minutes to the movie which I think was a decent enough ending but not as good as it would've been if he spent the rest of eternity on the ocean floor. But if you think about it, the "Blue Fairy" that the aliens (or new Earth life, whatever those fiber-optic beings were) created to tell David about getting his mother back for just one more day is EXACTLY what Spielberg is doing for us with Stanley Kubrick. With A.I., Spielberg is our Blue Fairy, giving us one last opportunity to watch a Kubrick movie... but it's not really a Kubrick movie. However, even though we know it's not the real Kubrick (just as David surely knew that that was not really his mother), we have to make the best of the time we have with him (just as David did) because THIS IS IT, FOLKS! We get no more Kubrick forever, so I think we shouldn't nitpick A.I. There's so much to praise about it. Spielberg has just made his best and most personal film since Schindler's List (it really redeemed him for the overrated mess that was Saving Private Ryan). You can really tell when he puts his heart and soul into a project instead of just phoning it in, like he has mostly been doing since "Hook" (which I still think was a good movie in spite of the good points that Harry makes about it demystifying Peter Pan). I applaud Spielberg for making a movie that (for once) has no discernible target audience. If anyone was going to get this film greenlighted, it would either be Spielberg or Kubrick... let's just thank the former for doing his best to make our wish for Kubrick his command.
-
Now that I've read the JAY AND SILENT BOB review, I long to be an intelligent talkbacker-- let's see if I can just not be obnoxious.
Hi Harry. Like you, I was confounded and frustrated by AI, to the point where I was yelling at my friends in the car on the way home from the movie and driving a bit erraticly, trying to explain to them why they were not allowed to just write it off and say, "I didn't like it." So much of it was so beautiful... my breath was taken away repeatedly. You can't dismiss movies like this.
And then came the ending. Now, it might just be me having been let down by Kubrick more than I've been let down by Spielberg, but I really saw the end as more Stanley's fault than Steven's. As you say, the ultimate fault does lie with Steven because in the end the movie was his, and I do believe that between the two directors, Steven is definitely the one more likely to cop out. What we're probably looking at here, though, is a confusion of vision. Steven was perhaps trying to be true to Stanley while still being Steven, and I would think changing the plans of a visionary deceased director would be intimidating for anyone, even Steven. I definitely think the ending would have worked better under Kubrick's direction-- I was personally looking for a playing up of the manufacturedness and artifice of the situation if the movie did indeed have to go on to the flash forward. But I do think, when push comes to shove, Steven knows about dramatic structure, and perhaps he got carried away with wanting to include too much, but most likely this is just one director trying to be true to too many people, including himself. -
You know, for someone who fancies himself a writer, I would think that you would know that the sentence is "...what film would Kubrick HAVE made?" Not "of". You are a tard. Why should anyone respect your opinion. No wonder your mom drank.
-
Jul 05, 2001 5:32:19 AM CDT
The time has come to throw my hat in......(SPOILERS!! AWAY, DAMN
by xthecrovvx
Well, at last, Harry throws in his A.I. review...the circle is complete...it's time for me to speak, at last.....Most of the film has been picked apart by fervent TBers on this site already, so i'll try and limit this to the bare essentials, ok?...Is this the best movie Spielberg, Kubrick has ever made? No. The best sci-fi film in the past, say, 5 years? err, no. Best film this year? EASILY. Film most likely to start some serious ball-busting debates for years to come? Hell yes. There's no real way to grade this thing on a scale, people...it's too rich....it'd be like trying to give an entire planet a rating on amihotornot.com...it'd be generalizing what is obviously an extremely diverse idea....However, that doesnt mean one cant say that certain parts were great or sucked.....I'll go into the major ones here...anything else, i'll go into later....Like so many others, i despise the ending....actually, its not really the ending i despise, because as an idea, a concept, it kinda works...it's how Spielberg executed it that pisses me off....if Kubrick actually did have the balls to go through with this ending, i guarantee you, so much of this scene would be carried out in total silence...no subtitles, no pain in the ass narrator....silence, right up until the blue fairy speaks, and David's mother is given back to him...and even then, the blue fairy could stand to shush a little.....for me, that would've made this scene resonate...be the powerful scene that it aspires to be ultimately fails at accomplishing......i still like the idea, though...2000 years later, the robots have evolved, to an effect, and have found David, and look after him for the last time....his wish is granted, and he is allowed to sleep/die/rest, an aspect that is a surefire debate....done better, i swear, this scene could work....The narrator....it not that im against the idea of a narrator in this story...every good fairy tale has one, why not this one? Its just a matter of what the narrator has to say, which is where the narration fucks up royally....having just taken a screenwriting course in NYC, one of the most BASIC rules is to SHOW, DON'T TELL...we can see it happening, anyone with a brain can fill in the blanks, we dont need Ben Kingsley to underline it for us.....which baffles me more, because there's still questions left unanswered here...wheres the narrator for those???? these are the huge flaws that mess with the film for me...but by no means do they destroy it....i do think it's an incredibly deep thoughtful piece, which is more than can be said for a good 98% of the films we've seen in the past 5 years,m with much to be explored, pondered, feel over....but still, the deep flaws exist...there is just so much to be hated and loved, that, for my taste, this movie may NEVER get a clear score from me....i'd say more, but its only 9 in the morning...my brain isnt equipped to deal with this so early, so, until later, Revolution is my name...
-
...by directing this movie. I've read many comments where the positives are attributed to Kubrick's vision, yet the failures (such as the ending some people don't like) are attributed to Spielberg's direction. The man simply can't win, and as someone who never really liked Kubrick's films save one (FMJ), that's aggravating. By the way, I left A.I. feeling very negative toward the film, but as I've read more discussions about the nature of the film and the ending (and not from Harry's shallow review--sorry Harry, but I saw the film a lot different than you did) I've started to appreciate it more, especially the ending. Obviously, there was more to this film than I initially came away with. McFly<--
-
A lot of the discussion I've seen posted on the Internet about A.I. has dealt with the movie's flaws, particularly its ending, its mediocraty, and whether the "mechas" felt any "real" emotions. I want to address these issues, but before I do, I'd like to say that A.I. is the first movie I've seen in years that completely involved me and made me forget I was sitting in a theater. It's also the first movie I've seen in years that left me thinking about it for days afterward -- I'm still thinking about it! Even to the point of being motivated to doing something I've never done before: talk about it on the Internet.
First off: the ending. What happens? Is it happy? Does David die? Does Teddy just sit there for eternity watching David's sleeping form? The movie doesn't really give much evidence; it's almost a 'Lady or the Tiger' kind of conclusion. However, you can glean some evidence as to what likely happened by looking at Spielberg's past as a moviemaker. His films always, ALWAYS end on a positive note (think about it: Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List, Close Encounters, heck, even in Poltergeist the tormented family came out okay.) With that in mind, what likely happened is that while Monica lived her one day, David, his wish of being with mom fulfilled, just had his first-ever night's sleep, in which he actually dreamt, and woke up the next day with Teddy by his side.
Now, did the mechas have feelings? It's pretty clear they did, evidenced by several actions: Gigolo Joe rescuing David after his "suicide" attempt; Teddy's warning to David when he tries eat some spinach; Teddy chasing after David when he's being taken to the Flesh Fair.
Anyway, that's my take on the whole A.I. thing. And by the way, Teddy ruled! -
That is ridiculous...you consider a movie a masterpiece, yet you don't know why??? Talk about being manipulated by the press and critics. If for 30 years someone called a pile of shit a "classic" would you too just b/c they did?? If you're admitting you don't understand a movie, yet you call it a masterpiece just because other "professionals" do you got issues. A.I. was a decent movie, but these critics giving it 4 stars and A+'s are just kissing Speilbergs ass...similar to your reasoning, if its speilberg..it HAS to be good. AI was OK. Thats it.
-
The Talkback here is more insightful about the ending(and the movie) than ANY SINGLE FRELLING REVIEW from the AintitcoolNews big guns. Happy ending? Oh, it can be interpreted as happy since David thinks he got what he wanted--but did he? That mother at the end wasn't the same mother he'd known before--her conflicted feelings for him had evaporated! Why can't you "reviewers" understand how shitty the farris wheel ending would have been? Robots and humans have switched places at the end! The mother was made to love David just as he had been made to love her. She was made in the mold of a lost loved one just as David had been! For a Pinocchio figure, David was a real boy who was made into a puppet only to become real because those he loved were made into puppets also. You can either say David had become human at the end, or you can say the movie made a case for love not being an exclusively "human" need as William Hurt had called it. I think AI has a wonderful ending. I love that it is both cynical and optimistic at once. Unfortunately you guys wanted a blatantly cruel ending without any ambiguity. Moriarty says there's no ambiguity--and I only agree with him in that I don't think David is dead as others do. But how is the ending straightfoward? The mother might really have memories, or maybe she's just as artificial as David. If she was real, wouldn't she still want Martin or her husband around? She was conflicted before, she felt guilty for loving David when her own son was returned to her. But the 24-hour mom had no conflict in her. She was all David's. Yet the real mother DID love David--though some think she didn't. So what happened there? Was she "real" and even if not, was her love real, was that all that mattered? If you think those questions are easily answered and not enough to make the film ambiguous, then you've closed off your mind to the film. There have been times I've hated Talkback, where people just say junk for the sake of joining the herd or verbally abuse people who can't fight back. But AI proves the need for your Talkback because that's where I'm hearing the really interesting ideas--many of them better than my own. I love AI, and I reject AintitcoolNews' official inability to appreciate it.
-
I think the pathos-inducing ending is well justified in consideration of the agony and heartbreak that David endures during the progression of the story. I suppose the execution of the ending could've been handled better, but I thought its essence was consistent with the dominant themes that were explored in the first and second acts. The advanced mecca exposition/blue fairy incarnation was a little uneven, but I may be the only one who feels the mother/son interaction was endearing, and the final shot (especially when Teddy jumps on the bed) was definitly memorable. I have a sneaking suspicion that more people will warm up to this film with time.
-
...since Empire of the Sun-I believe Kubrick was very wise to let Spielberg have this project because one of SS's best film traits is to bond the audience with a child in a non-condescending way and Kubrick rarely dealt with kids onscreen and when he did(as in The Shining)they came off very stilted. A mature move on his part as an artist.
This movie,like Moulin Rouge,was about love and how to value it. The visual look of the film was amazing and the f/x outstanding but without Haley Joel Osmont,it wouldn't have worked. HSO has that screen magic that can only found in the truly gifted amongst us.
Jude Law did a great job(Gigolo Joe's intentions toward the Blue Fairy were hysterical)and Frances O'Connor was very moving. The fairytale theme was not only the brothers Grimm but Hans Christian Anderson as well(read the original version of The Little Mermaid and you'll see what I mean).
If they had ended the movie with David trapped forever,it would've been HCA but I think that both Spielberg and Kubrick wanted to see the hero reach his reward. The irony of a being created to love having someone made over to love him back is both Kubrickan and HCA. -
Love it or hate it, you have got to admit that it's been quite some time since a film has sparked the level of discussion (debate?, argument?) that A.I. has, and on a certian level, that makes it a success in my opinion.
When Blade Runner was released, it was pretty much a box-office flop, but is now regarded as the yardstick by which many of todays SF films are measured. This, I feel will ultimately be the case with A.I.. I think there's a LOT more going on beneath the surface of this film than can be seen on just one, two or three viewings.
One question posed during the begining of the film is what responsibility to WE have to love an artificial machine, programed to love us? However, I feel that it's also forcing us to ask what responsibility do we have to love ANYTHING back, real OR artificial. This is the ultimate unrequited love story. At one time or another in our lives, we have loved someone or something dearly and yet never have that love reciprocated. In addition, perhaps someone has felt love for you, but they just didn't "do it for you" and you were unable to give love in return. Unfortunately humans have a capacity for great emotional selfishness, and that's one of the points that I feel A.I. is trying to make.
I won't deny the film has flaws, but regardless, this is one I'm going to be thinking about for a long, long time. -
Love it or hate it, you have got to admit that it's been quite some time since a film has sparked the level of discussion (debate?, argument?) that A.I. has, and on a certian level, that makes it a success in my opinion.
When Blade Runner was released, it was pretty much a box-office flop, but is now regarded as the yardstick by which many of todays SF films are measured. This, I feel will ultimately be the case with A.I.. I think there's a LOT more going on beneath the surface of this film than can be seen on just one, two or three viewings.
One question posed during the begining of the film is what responsibility to WE have to love an artificial machine, programed to love us? However, I feel that it's also forcing us to ask what responsibility do we have to love ANYTHING back, real OR artificial. This is the ultimate unrequited love story. At one time or another in our lives, we have loved someone or something dearly and yet never have that love reciprocated. In addition, perhaps someone has felt love for you, but they just didn't "do it for you" and you were unable to give love in return. Unfortunately humans have a capacity for great emotional selfishness, and that's one of the points that I feel A.I. is trying to make.
I won't deny the film has flaws, but regardless, this is one I'm going to be thinking about for a long, long time. -
Harry ... love the site, love the scoops, but please - FOR THE LOVE OF GOD - cut out the references to your personal life in your reviews. No one gives a shit. It only makes you look like an amateur hour hack. Yes, it's your site and you have the right to post whatever you want. But the simple fact of the matter is, it's us - the readers - who are keeping your site going, or at least keeping it as popular as it is. I personally only come here to check out the scoops and rumors. Reading your reviews started off as a guilty pleasure for me. At first I was amused. Now I'm just sad. Sad because of the lack of potential being wasted. You've been running AICN for years now. You have the privilege and, I dare say, the *responsibility* of hosting one of the most popular movie sites in the world. Maybe you should think about jumping into Journalism 101 and posting honest-to-god cut the crap objective reviews instead of the schlock that you seem so insistent on posting. Of course your personal experiences are going to reflect how you rate a film. Just show some sense and keep the details to yourself. Find a balance between objective reporting and relating to your reader without embarrasing us.
-
For those wanting a cruel ending, how about ending it when David throws himself off the cybertronics building with a last word "mommy"...very creepy in a 'rosebud' kind of way...
-
it accounts for the events of significance and does not contradict any event. I welcome movies that give the viewer a chance to be creative in this manner. David's imagination is limited by its hardwired programming and by the words of the people it trusts. It lacks the initiative necessary to grow up at a rate alongside most humans. But it is a learning machine; if Monica had tried to teach it how to grow up, then maybe it could. Humans with Down syndrome learn slowly too, and some of us can love them. If humans turn out to be nothing more than organized collections of molecules, each behaving according to the same physics as that governing any other collection of organized molecules, then it might be said that humans are machines too. This would complicate the debate over David's realness. Maybe the exaggerated prejudice held toward the Mechas by the Orgas subtly shows itself here.
-
and I wasn't planning to after the other reviews I read, but Harry now makes me want to see it--so do some of the other Talkback reactions here. I will rush to see it this afternoon and report back. I don't expect greatness, but Harry makes me believe that it will be better than others have said, and worthy, at least, of grudging respect if not disappointment at the ending. I'll let you know what I think. See ya!
-
I have heard that at the end when David is awaken that the alien looking creatures are not Aliens, but advanced robots. I am not sure. What do you think?
-
The bugger Spielberg may have "evolved", but certainly his instinct for narrative flow and how to end a friggin' film has clearly departed. This movie is a disappointing mess with a few lovely touches. Sorry. lads, find another guru.
-
Why does everybody have something against Hook? I thought it was an extremely creative and imaginative film. Is there something I'm missing? I'd really like to hear someone tell me they didn't like it.
-
AI is simply the worst movie of the year, but of the past couple years. Sure, the acting and f/x are great, but that does not mean a movie is good. There is such a thing as STORY, which Spielberg totally throws out the window. Why is Jude Law there? He *could* have had an interesting storyline, but Spielberg threw it away. What are William Hurt's motivations? Why plant clues to get David to come back home, then let him jump out a window and let him sit underwater for 2000 GODDAMN YEARS!!! The whole Fleshfarm thing was stupid, the motorcycle dogs were IDIOTIC, and THE ENDING! MY GOD THE ENDING!!! Spielberg decides to HIT US OVER THE HEAD with his ideas here. Hey, the aliens had blue skin at the end, did you get it??? Ughh. And for those that think those were mechas at the end, they weren't. They were aliens --- why would mechas look EXACTLY like aliens? Especially like the aliens in Close Encounters??? I CAN'T BELIEVE SPIELBERG WROTE THIS TRASH. SPIELBERG HAS LOST HIS MIND. I know some of you enjoyed the film, and yes I can accept that. We all have different tastes. But for me I expect good movies to have well developed characters and to stick to the story. This movie does neither. It is totally derivitate of other films, there isn't a shred of creativity here, there is almost NO character development, the ending ruins the entire film for most people. My audience hated it. I hated it. People are looking at Spielberg's name stamped on it and giving this POS thumbs up. Come on people, wake up! If someone else's name was on this thing you'd be trashing it. This movie doesn't deserve any more of my time. Peace Out.
-
Spielberg didn't have second thoughts about the ending of Close Encounters. The only reason he added the mothership interiors was because that was the only way Columbia would let him re-edit other parts of the film for the re-release. So basically he compromised to get the stuff in he really wanted in the first time.
-
Jul 05, 2001 7:17:44 AM CDT
More Kubrickian ending (a.k.a. "How Stanley could have loved to
by zacharyb
Here's an imaginary suggestion as to how Kubrick might have (if forced to) worked with Speilberg's ending:
Sure, the futuristic aliens can bring back humans (if only for a day), and sure Teddy has a lock of Mommy's hair that will provide the neccesary DNA to bring her back (if only for a day)...BUT (and here's where Stanley's warped sense of humor comes in), David is shocked (as shocked as a robot can be) when they bring back Mommy, but alas, they cannot change her attitude, emotions or thoughts. They bring her back...he gets to see her after 2000 years, but she still cannot love him.
I think Stanley would have liked that ending a little better... -
Besides the "2001/Clockwork Orange" meets "E.T." meets "Pinocchio" post-modernistic pessimistic fairy-tale angle thats been discussed to death; I found it (especially the ending) somewhat reminicent of "Candide." Dispite what we are led (by thise in power) this is not the best of all possible worlds, and all the dreaming and journeying toward that dream, will ultimately fail in the harsh light of unchangeable reality. What is, is. Little boys will not become real, there is no heaven, there is no happy home. Paraphrasing the Animaniacs' Yakko, Wacko and Dot: "How UN-Speilbergian." Thats it! "A.I." is the "Anti-Shrek." Did I like it? I don't know? Was I disappointed? I don't know. Was it thought-provoking enough to see again? Yes.
-
Jul 05, 2001 7:26:08 AM CDT
I didn't mind the "second ending" really, I just thought it shou
by z-man
I mean they spent 20 minutes on that. David's adventure is over, they should be wrapping things up. I do think it would be a better movie with the creepy ending, but the fairie tale ending makes sense. They should have just edited it down to 5 or 10 minutes. Still--great movie, Moriarty's on crack.
-
Jul 05, 2001 7:27:32 AM CDT
MORE - AND I HATE THAT A FILM THIS BAD HAS GENERATED THIS MUCH L
by timmer33
One: If teddy had a whole bunch of David's mother's hair, why could the aliens only create her once??? Two: Why in the hell did the company give David to a family whose own child was frozen and might be woken at any time??? Three: What kind of programmer would create a robot that could grab on to a kid and pull him underwater and drown him??? Four: Why did William Hurt go to all the trouble to find David only to let him jump off the building and let him sit underwater for so m any years. Five: Why ignore Jude Law's character? Six: The aliens at the end were NOT mechas. If they were, why speak in a language that had to be subtitled? WHy look exactly like aliens?? Seven: Like the cops would let their "amphibicopter" get hijacked to New York. Eight: Wasn't it just a little too easy, finding the building with Hobsy in it? Nine: If Robots don't cry out for their lives, and don't have feelings, why did one of them ask for his "pain receptors" to be shut off??? How can you talkbackers ignore this stuff? Don't you care about story and character development??? All this time, I thought you did.
-
This is basically an email I sent to my good buddy XTheCrowX regarding my thoughts about the stuff (without the indentations). I more or less feel the same about it five days later, which is respectful confusion. Here goes: *** "Firstly, hey, don't think of this as spiteful anger or anything, man, but I think you missed the point of the Chris Rock thing. I may be reaching here, but I think there's logic behind the cameo. It wasn't comedy relief. Oh, I laughed, as did the rest of the audience, but did you notice something about the other robots getting destroyed? The computer robot was spouting stuff about how it was malfunctioning, like computers tend to do. That nanny bot (I think that was one of the parts that stayed with me the most... whew) went out being nice to David, and she was smiling sweetly at him even as her face was melting off. She was PROGRAMMED to! So what about the Rock-bot? Well, did you notice the way he looked? There were a couple other black mechas, and they didn't look like him. They looked like real people. The Rock mecha looked like a ventriloquist's dummy! One of those caricatured minstrels! He, I have concluded, was a comedian mecha! A mecha programmed to tell jokes! It went out on a joke, like it was programmed to do! The movie wasn't going out of the way for a one-liner, it was just presenting the mecha in a cold, passive, Kubrickian nature!! I mean, you saw it catch aflame and explode a minute later! ***As for Spielberg getting Rock to do the voice... well, again, I might be reaching, but there's logic. I mean, we always pull back celebs for promotional needs. We make Fred Estaire dance with Hoovers and Prestley sing at Pizza Huts. If you were making a comedian mecha, you'd wanna get a famous, beloved (legendary?)comedian behind it's voice. If that theory doesn't hold up, then you have to admit Rock has a damned funny voice. Actually kinda caricatured, like a minstrel. THERE! That's a better theory. *** I put a lot of thought behind that one robot, as I have all of A.I., and that's why I think it's great. Awe-inspiring. Amazing. The best movie of the year. I THOUGHT. I thought about the movie afterwards. Man, I haven't done that since... well, Eyes Wide Shut. It felt so good to see something so fresh and different after crap like Tomb Raider, Pearl Harbor, Fast and the Furious, blah de blah. It felt so fucking good to THINK about a movie. I want to see this again. And again and again. Fantastic filmmaking. *** Was it flawed? Oh, my, yes. I, like the rest of the world apparently, could've done without the ending. It was well done and thoughtful, but unneccessary. Could you imagine the uproar if Spielberg just cut us off with Osment crying to the Fairy? Oh, man. "Spielberg can be cold! Waaah!" I would've felt fine with it that way. But then that wonderful, wonderful thinking comes in again. And I think to myself, would I really? I mean, REALLY? Would I have been alright with the movie giving us no payoff to poor little David's journey? Spielberg made us care for David (I actually cared about Joe and Teddy, too, as well as all the mechas, but I'll get to that in a minute), and I wonder if I would've felt cheated not knowing what happened to him after the whole ordeal. Yes, Kubrick did that a lot, but I didn't like it when he did it then, either. You have to admit, it was cool to see that spaceship zooming through the ice/excavation. Also, I was happy for David in the end. But then again, I think about the cold Kubrickian parts, and I think, "No! It was wrong!" Then I think about the Spielberg part, and I think "No! It was right!".... hoo boy. I think once I find out if the ending was Kubrick's or Spielberg's ideas, I'll be decided. I also think this movie will have people divided for years. And I love that. *** I think another flaw was the inconsistency. How did Joe get from that hotel room with the murder to the woods? How did David get Teddy back upon leaving the Flesh Fair?? And where the hell did my grandma's boyfriend... er, I mean Hobby go after he walked through that door? You know, just before David found all those other David prototypes. Where'd he go? But again, the thinking comes in. It was a fantasy. Worrying about those details is trivial. But then the thinking sez, "Then why was there such obvious detail in the movie?" I kinda think the Dr. Know scene explains it a little better: It combines "flat fact" with "fairy tale". *** That's another thing: Dr. Know. I don't think getting Williams was inexcusable as a cameo. It would've if Dr. Know was some crazed head zooming around like the Genie from Aladdin, but Dr. Know was pretty stationary, and was more or less vital to the story. As far as Williams as the voice itself goes, when he isn't high or drunk or running around making squeaky voices, he has a fatherly, professor-like voice (example: Good Will Hunting). I doubt a lot of people even noticed it was his voice. That was a trippy effect, that Max Headroom of the future. *** As for Ben Kingsley, that was uneccessary. Useless. Big fault, in my opinion. Then again, nobody seemed to realize that those things at the end were robots, not aliens, so maybe it didn't go far ENOUGH. *** Now then: the effects! Oh, my gentle Mary, those effects. That CGI! That makeup! If this doesn't sweep the technical awards next year, I will be PISSED. Take many, many notes, Lucas. THIS is how you tell a story using special effects. The CGI scenery and locations in this movie, in my opinion, beat the shit out of Phantom Menace. Anybody can make some fantastical alien world. Nobody can say it doesn't look like the real thing, cuz who the hell knows?! But neon and Manhattan and cars and Teddy bears, people know what they look like. And dammit, ILM pulled it off nicely. Stan Winston REALLY pulled off the wide variety of mechanical effects. From that weird crane-looking robot with the old man's face on the video screen to Joe's mirror hand and flip-wrist shit going on, I must know how they did it! I just HAVE TO!!! I haven't felt this way since I saw T2 for the first time. And you really see how the did the effects for T2 on that fantastic DVD, which is why a DVD of that status is the only level of DVD suitable for A.I. I have to see a scene-by-scene breakdown and behind the scenes footage for EVERYTHING! *** Then we have Teddy, which is a real breakthrough for the movie. The CGI and puppetry were blended PERFECTLY. The fur and robotic wobbling and voice and everything was GREAT. Plus, I liked Teddy. He almost-ALMOST-stole the show for me. At first he just freaked the shit out of me. I was fuckin' SCARED of that thing. Then after a while I was undecided, and expected him to try and sell me Snuggle at any minute. Finally, about the time he started interrogating that Flesh Fair employee ("Where is David? Do you know David? Are you taking me to David? What's David's sign? Is he a Leo? He's a Leo, right? I knew it."), I fell in love with the little bastard. And I wanted him to be okay, y'know? You don't wanna see him break or short out or get eaten alive by acid. He's suave. That leads me to another question I have that I could'nt answer, no matter how much I thought about it- the hell happened to Teddy at the end? He was all alone! Monica was dead, David was... er, ambiguously asleep/dead. What about Teddy? The future robots didn't even care about making the damn bear happy? That bear needs a spinoff. He can quest to become a real bear. He'll be this year's Wilson, I assure you. *** Seriously, though, the mechas in this movie had character. I cared about them. Don't get me started on Gigalo Joe, man. What a slicker, that Joe. I dug this guy. That little cock of the head that turned on the radio, that mirror on the palm, that trick with the hair, and of course that groovy outfit... he was great. Jude Law is the man. See Gattaca if you haven't already (he was in that). He made a good companion, a great contrast- a mecha made to really love, compared to a mecha made for mindless sex (natch, we made the sex robots first). I wondered what happened to him in the end. Of course, I assume he was destroyed, but I would've liked to see him a little more. I would've liked to see a little more development with Joe and the murder. And although it would've probably made the ending even worse in retrospective, I half-hoped the future robots would've excavated Joe too, and we would've seen him one last time. But, y'know, if he was destroyed, that'd make it hard. Also, David got what he wanted. Joe didn't really want anything, so as far as payoffs go, he was covered. But he went out with fuckin' A dialogue, that's for sure. "When you get back, tell the ladies about me, won't you? Remember, I am... I was." Oh, hell yes. ***
Great performances all around in this movie. Bit parts to main characters. Blanced the fx fantastically. Haley needs an Oscar for this. Law probably wasn't in it enough for a Best Supporting Actor, but I didn't think Joe Pesci was in "Goodfellas" much, and there he went, so there ya go. My grandma and I agree that Hurt needed more to do. Frances O'Connor wasn't quite motherly enough for me, but still, a great performance. Did Lord Johnson-Johnson (the Flesh Fair ringleader) look a helluva lot like Terry Gilliam to you, too? The kid who played Martin played the younger version of the killer in the Cell! Amaaaaazing!
*** I agree with the Spielberg/Lynch comparison. Lynch's vagueness seems to work consistently in his movies, while Steve-o, at the complete other end of the spectrum, undersetimates the audience and always seems to explain too much. I also agree with the AICN witch hunt points. Don't get me started, man. And I agree, to a degree, about the issue of the dozens of questions the movie leaves. Like I said above, I think the point is to make you think. Based on what the movie presents you, you have to ponder what most likely happened. Maybe even debate it. And I don't mean "This movie is faggy shit, and you fucks are shitty fags!". I mean thoughtful debate. THAT would be nice. Also, I don't think the movie pauses to explain what it doesn't have to. Since the movie presents us with so much detail, though, that does leave a lot to ponder, don't it?" *** There now. As if you all read that. I'd also like to add that Tiger is making a toy version of Teddy this Fall, and I can't wait to drop it out of trees and shove it in my freezer. Thank you for your time and bandwith. This has been a Moment with User ID Indeed! No, Harry, no! Please don't ban me! I'm sorry I'm not a real TalkBacker! I'm sorry! NOOOO!
-
Your interpretation of the ending is definitely my favorite of the bunch. HOWEVER, i think that that interpretation is subtextual, and the ending needs another interpretation on the surface. The idea that the entire 'reality' of davids house is constructed by the uber-mechas is a good thought, especially given the blatant scienterrific hoohah the mechas feed david about DNA in hair and space-time containing people's spirit/memories. this sounds like the type of stuff that robots would tell their kids at bedtime, like humans tell their children about flying horses, and mystical lands where candy grows on trees. The robots are feeding david a fairy tale to make him happy, and they construct a reality to bolster that fairy tale.
Further thoughts: not to be unoriginal, but Robin Williams had no place in this movie. HOWEVER, if he hadnt done the genie voice and all but screamed "HEY! THIS IS ROBIN WILLIAMS, JUST DROPPIN IN FOR MY GOOD BUDDY STEVE!!" i wouldnt have minded. and the 3 seconds of Chris Rock did more to set back the civil rights movement than any minstrel show. White people seem to love seeing scared black people. (witness about a bajilllion horror flicks).
anyway, im gonna go see this again, and try to get my thoughts together a little more. -
A flooded city - Waterworld. A robot that wants to be human - Data, Bicentenial Man, Pinochio. A falling Ferris Wheel - 1942. Flying cop cars - Blade Runner. BTW, how can global warming warm the earth so much, so it can FREEZE FOR 2000 YEARS!!! You talkbackers that liked this film so much obviously don't care about LOGIC, STORY, CHARACTER DEVELOPMENT.
-
I've seen it before...Harry will hype up a movie while it's still in developement, and get us all salivating...then at the final moment, upon release, ..........nothing...no comment from harry....usually the movie in question is a stinker, or atleast has offended the sensiblilities of the local crowd here at AICN..............................but i think we're seeing a new and improved harry today.....this is the harry that can go see a sneak preview of rollerball, and still come out and report the truth..that it had MAJOR flaws......i gotta tell ya folks, i thought harry was going to come out a trash talk AI.....i really loved the movie, ending and all...i think that some of the earlier posts explained it quite well, so i won't repeat what's allready been said..anyhow...i just wanted to post here, and say that i LOVED this review...even tho i don't agree with harry's assesment of the films ending, i have to respect his opinion....GREAT REVIEW HARRY....thanks for not chickening out..
-
Why was the ending a legitimate part of the story? Because of Gigolo Joe
-
1) Yes, the story COULD have ended under the ferris wheel, and it would have been a really good ending, but those of us who try to write know that sometimes the characters and story take on a life of their own. In this case, there was simply more to the story. I liked this ending, too. 2) The 2000 years under ice was penance. When David saw and destroyed himself, it was an act of selfishness, and he had to atone, before he could attain perfect love for his mother. His years spent parying trapped under ice were jsut that: atonement.
-
Like other TBers, I was certain they were going to leave David under the ice, and terrified that they would... For those who say the entire ending was in David's mind, I must disagree - if the meta-mechas were merely trying to make David happy with pure fantasy, they wouldn't have brought up the limitations of their cloning process (they could only clone those whose remains they found) - they simply would have had the Blue Fairy wave her wand and *poof* there's his mother. David would have believed it, because it would be a fairy tale resolution. Whether David merely dreams or dies, I do not know - perhaps he will dream forever, happy now that his mother loves him. As for the narrative, it is both a fairy tale device ("Once upon a time...") and a science fiction convention (robots telling fairy tales - see "City" by Clifford D. Simak, where dogs tell tales of humans). I found this to be a lyrical film - sure, I would have liked a better flesh fair and higher tech bikes (holographic hounds evoking Fahrenheit 451, perhaps), but so much of this was stunning, lyrical - except Dr. Know, who should have been a mecha with the voice of someone like Sir Ralph Richardson. It is not a happy ending - it is bittersweet. As for Teddy, he is a "real" - but his fate is not tragic - his boy is happy, and so he is happy to wait with him, whether he ever wakes up or not.
-
I found the first 2/3 of the film to be the best work Spielberg has ever done in the sci-fi film realm. I had a horrible time with the boring over-explainatory ending. Harry's idea for how it should have ended is right on. It's much more thought provoking and eery to have the robot locked in ice for all eternity wishing for something that will never be. The Spielbergian ending was out of place and unforgivable in many ways. But before that bad finale takes place, we get to see excellent performances by everyone, especially Jude Law and HJ Osment. William Hurt was no shlub either. Even Teddy, the mechanical stuffed supertoy turned out to be cool without being cheesy. A.I.'s sets are fantastic as are the robot special effects. I had no problems with the dialogue nor subject matter of the first 2/3 of this film. There is definitely some gold in the murky river known as A.I. If you leave the theater just after the ferris wheel lands on David and Teddy in the amphibacopter (or when the ice age kicks in), you'll enjoy A.I. much better.
-
I no particular preconceptions about seeing A.I. although I had read most of the reviews on this site. It seemed to me to be a lot like a Ray Bradbury story. Elements of Science Fiction mixed in with some Fantasy. If you approach it in that manner I think the movie holds up quite well, even the ending. I would have to disagree with Harry about the ending. In a sense, with his new found ability to dream David has become something more than just a machine and I think that fits the "fairy tale". It is a retelling, with sci-fi added to the mix. Watch it carefully. It seemed to me that many of the reviewers did not.
-
Ain't it nice, though, to even have a film that has an ambiguous ending??
Also, the whole Hurt speech about whether humans can love this robot child... he's really referring to the audience.
-
Jul 05, 2001 8:16:59 AM CDT
Please explain to me why everybody seems to be in DENIAL about t
by azscott
If you would take just 5 minutes to look around the 'net, you would see plenty of evidence that points to the ending belonging to KUBRICK! Why do people keep saying things to the effect of "well, that's just Speilberg trying to tack on a happy ending". Give me a break! And Harry, I'm especially dissapointed in you! Your MEDIUM is the internet! You should know better. I will grant you that Kubrick, had he lived to make this film, most likely would have made it very differently. His sensibilities were different than the esteemed Mr. Speilberg, and I don't mean AT ALL in the way most folks' pop-psychology explanations separate the two. "Oh, Steven understands how to touch your heart onscreen, and Kubrick was always so dark" - Bullshit! Stanley Kubrick was a filmaker who always questioned himself and his motives as an artist. He took great care and great amounts of time crafting his films because he wanted to create the utmost emotional impact, but at the same time wanted to challenge people intellectually. The ending may have very well stayed the same, it may have changed substantially, or it might have been scrapped altogether. Let me make a proposal at how AI might have ended, and please THINK about this for a second. Okay, the ferris wheel falls. Slow pullback, no narration. Crash cut to the Ice floes, with a title overlaid "2000 years later". The super mechas find David and scan his memories. Again, no narration or subtitles for the super mechas. David wakes up at home, discovering the Blue Fairy, who tells him he can have his Mother back for only one day, then never again. The super mechas look on as David spends his fantasy day with mom, again no narration. David and his Mom fall asleep, David knowing he will never see his Mother again, but reaching the end of his quest at last. This ending is not substantially different than the one we saw. It's just a matter of taste in the editing. Would Kubrick have ended the film like this? Who the hell knows? I do know one thing for sure: If Speilberg had cut the end of the film like this, all those whining fanboys would be saying "what a cool, obtuse, Kubrick-like ending!". So let's all speculate at length at what could have been, let's all buy the enhanced, 2-disk DVD with hundreds of pre-production sketches and production notes, let's all buy the collector's edition coffee table book "The Art of AI" and debate endlessly on what belonged to who... But, please people! Whatever we do, let's NOT bend Speilberg over and ream him up the ass for not being Kubrick! This is not, and will never be just a Speilberg film, just a Kubrick film, or just any kind of normal film that you can judge apart from it's history. If you look at it as a unique archeological experiment, you come to the inevitable. Thank you, Mr. Speilberg for giving us a glimpse into what might have been. Thank you, Mrs. Kubrick and Mr. Harlan for allowing this project to survive. History will find a flawed, facinating film that we are all richer for having in the world.
-
I just went back and reread his review--read it all the way through for the first time, actually--and his points are all more than valid. I still like the movie, though.
-
...doesn't mean it's quality. This was Kubrick's project and this is not the film he would make. Stan had a very cynical view of technology and society, and realized that hope is something overrated directors use to sell tickets. When is Spielberg going to stop hanging on to fairy tales in his "writing?" It was bad enough that he turned the Holocaust into a fairy tale, but all he does in A.I. is copy Pinnochio and the Wizard of Oz almost blatantly. Very rarely do we see films where the acting is outstanding all around, but the film just blows. Even if he ends it where he should end it, the movie still has a dumb feel. Instead of dealing with intelligent ideas and questions, Spielberg shoves loads of goo down our throat. Why do I even get caught up in the hype, when I know the film will be a close encounter with crap.
-
Take my coicuts, please! I just flew in from what's left of New York, and boy are my paws tired!
-
Your analyse of A.I. is the best I've read so far (and I've read a fare number to date).
-
Jul 05, 2001 8:35:37 AM CDT
This has to be a record for most talkbacks on a subject...
by l.b. jefferies
I've finally taken some time to read a lot of the talkbacks and a lot of people make some good points about the movie. At least some of you are giving valid reasons for not liking it, not just saying, "Oooh, that was a piece of shit." It all comes down to perspective. When "Mars Attacks!" came out, it bombed... why? Because everyone who went to see it was expecting another "Independence Day" which it completely wasn't. Not since Blair Witch came out have I seen such spirited debate anywhere. But for everyone who saw this movie and has something intelligent to say about it (either positive or negative), I challenge you to see it again and see if your feelings stay with you about it... having only seen it once, I can't yet speak from experience but I guarantee that your viewpoint on it is going to change at least a little. Because of all this debate (is it good? is it crap? did Spielberg do justice to Kubrick? etc.), we've all already made A.I. a classic, for better or for worse... but that's another talkback.
-
Having been warned about and not taken by surprise at the extended ending, I feel that I got a fair impression of the movie. I entirely understood it's presence, in fact, as it fit into the movie's episodic nature. The only problem that I had with it was that the movie actually *acts* as if it's going to end when David gets trapped- the camera pulls back, and the narration kicks in as if to wrap things up. I really don't understand why Spielberg couldn't just hold the shot and write some narration that didn't sound so final- that would have made the epilogue much less jarring. Oh, and by the way, it does serve a purpose- despite the fact that the 'observers' come out of nowhere, it sort of puts David's entire situation and condition into a much grander perspective. Rather than looking at him as a pale cariacture of humanity, we see him as a sort of 'time capsule' of some of our long-lost qualities.
-
Moriarty in his ridiculously nitpicking review was the one who said that the word amphabicopter is said a million times in AI. This struck me as odd, because I didn't remember the word being said that much. When I saw the movie again, I counted the times I heard it. Twice. Wow, that sure is insane. The narrarator says it as we enter the epilogue, and David says it to the super mecha ("Maybe it will be a day the goes on and on, like the one in the amphibacopter", or such). Now maybe I missed one, earlier use of it, but even so, three times doth not make more then... three.
Also watched for the scene when Monica finds David's writings ("I love you Mommy"). Moriarty said that she acts scared when she reads them. Nope, she acts sad, and starts to cry (she's upset, but certainly not scared). This is the scene when she comes in, already intending to take him back to the lab for destruction. Now she reads this sweet things he wrote a la any little boy, and it upsets her, and helps lead to her letting him go in the woods.
I understand Moriarty was deeply let down by the film, but this led to him seeing/remembering things that just did not happen as he says. -
hey,
i need some help, could somebody cut and paste that NY Times article in an email and send it to me? i went to: http://www.nytimes.com/library/film/071899kubrick-ai.html
but i needed to be a subscriber. i would love to read the similarities and differences between to two filmmakers, but i cant get to it... could anybody help me? if so, email it to me at grantwood@aol.com. thanks.
ryan -
OK, so I personally find AI to be a masterpiece, not even a flawed one, and one of my all time favorite films. Whatever. This film is speaking to people in different ways. But what is really bugging me about the talk back here is that people who dislike the ending think that this makes the film a bad movie, not worthy of discussion. And some of these people have praised unimaginative crap such as Moulin Rouge and Shrek. Look, if anyone thinks that Moulin Rouge has more to say about love, or that Shrek has more to say about Fairy tales,than AI, then they seriously need to receive a little more education before speaking again.
-
I have previously posted on how I believe A.I is a masterpiece. However, I did not realize I would continue to think about and realize things a week after viewing? Did anyone else notice that both Martin and David are both seen frozen, then thawed to reunite with their shared mother? Is this to tell us that he has now achieved the same status as Martin. He was left in the " cold", a limbo which only Princess Charming ( also known as MOM) could wake him from. What a fairy tale indeed.
-
and Jim Cameron would have followed Stanley's notes...in a more comprehensive, serious manner.
Too bad. Spielberg still thinks Disney is wonderful. Disney is terrible - MCDONALDS of America. I hated all the Disney referenced characters and design. Putrid design throughout except for flooded/frozen NY which could well be Syd Mead/Dennis Murren. Rouge City is just K-Mart dressing over the TERRIBLE Universal City Walk.
Spielberg is so out of touch with contemporary America. All he knows is what he sees on TV and inside looking out of his Mercedes as he drives from Burbank to Pacific Palisades.
Seriously folks...he's so buffered with assistants and yes-men & women that he actually is like DAVID and countless little boys in his films.
WHAT ARE REDNECKS doing at the robot destruction festival? Wouldn't there be more ethnic diversity in New Jersey by then? Even JERRY SPRINGER's audiences are is diversely composed. Any one been to NYC? Ever nationality of the world is there. -
I think the Spielberg of 1978 still would've messed up the ending. Look what he did to "Close Encounters": rereleased the thing two years later with a weak-ass expanded ending...and years later he regretted it and cut the shit out. And years from now he will regret what he did with "AI".
-
*David's creator - obviously he designed David after his own child - presumed dead - yet we see little to no emotion from this man except toward the end, but even then it's more for a wonder of his accomplishments, not how much it's like his son.
*David's father - he was so into getting this thing to help his wife and maybe fill the void in their lives, yet as soon as David becomes activated, the father resents him, jumping to conclusions that it's a threat.
The family in general doesn't seem to have any genuine emotions - was this intended to show how INhuman humans have become?
Why would people waste precious seconds trying to break the hold of David from the boy drowning instead of simply grabbing both and bringing them up?
Why did the mother take David out to a forest Right Next To the corporation he was built at, and then tell him to stay away from them?
How did Teddy get from the little girl's clutches ( seen on top the bleachers as David's leaving) to David's arms?
I wanted to enjoy this movie, but holes like these took me out of the plot completely. -
Take a look at the ending of 2001: A Space Odyssey: The room, silence, colours, aliens (monoliths in 2001), rebirth.
The exploration of life and death in 2001 is explored in A.I. with David's mother being reborn. Spielberg attempted to bookend Kubrick's career by employing a similar ending to one of Kubrick's most recognized films. Is it coincidence that A.I. came out in this year, in 2001? I think not.
-
Take a look at the ending of 2001: A Space Odyssey: The room, silence, colours, aliens (monoliths in 2001), rebirth.
The exploration of life and death in 2001 is explored in A.I. with David's mother being reborn. Spielberg attempted to bookend Kubrick's career by employing a similar ending to one of Kubrick's most recognized films. Is it coincidence that A.I. came out in this year, in 2001? I think not. -
Not fanboys, but people who like to take a serious-mindedperspective on films. This site is too damn stupid for me.
-
Not fanboys, but people who like to take a serious-minded perspective on films. This site is too damn stupid for me.
-
Well, call it Kubergian ... The expansion of the scope throughout the film into this final 2001-ish third act is Kubrick all the way. I think Spielberg influences it in having a ambiguous-leaning-slightly-towards-positive very end, where Kubrick may have had the opposite vibe, the ending being the same in both cases. I thought the third act was kind of clumsy but ending it underwater would have been less of a tribute to Kubrick's worldview. If nothing else, he had an eye for the big picture and always pushed to the "next level", to both good and bad effect at times. He was many things but I think he would always choose the further exploration exhibited in the third act of AI to the tidy downer it would have been had it ended before that. Moreover, I definitely think that is the right idea all the way, and I applaud this movie for making that leap. Sure it maybe could have been done a little better - enough exposition already! - but the spirit of the movie was better served with the third act than it would have been without!
-
Okay, the Super-Mechas at the ending could have been a lot more imaginative, and I still really wish David had brought his mom a Bloody Mary instead of a cup of coffee. But it's hardly happily ever after. It reminds me a little of the telling of the fall from grace; Satan loves God above all others, above His creation. All that sustains him through an eternity in Hell is the echo of his beloved masters final words, 'Be Gone.' Like Hal9000, David is God made in Man's image, and he is a psychopath. Kubrick films, which 'A.I.' is at least partly, are best seen within the context of his body of work. To date, I haven't seen any commentary on the films' parralels to 'Barry Lyndon', the rivalry between the two half brothers and the final miserable reunion of the miserable Lady Lyndon and her equally miserable son Lord Bullingdon, "A melancholy boy, much attached to his mother." 'A.I.' is an enormously ambitious film, and the sort of big budget mass distribution film which is almost never allowed to be made. Like '2001' or 'Apocalypse Now' (albeit not as good as even 'Full Metal Jacket') it's one of the more unique and unusual films that many mainstream viewers will ever see, made with resources (money AND talent) unavailable to many more independent minded film makers. Structurally the film is much more inventive than 'Memento' or 'The Usual Suspects', however somewhat less fluid than 'Eyes Wide Shut'. I would have been terribly let down if it had ended where many are suggesting it should have.
-
My wife and I really enjoyed the movie, and although it's not a masterpiece, it is certainly good, and a welcome respite from the mindless dreck at the boxoffice. I felt that the ending references the beginning... the question asked of William Hurt's character... basically, what is real/love? When you love and can be loved in return. Furthermore, the mom at the end dies. But does David? Does he go on after that?
-
The early scenes with Gigolo Joe were definitely reminiscent of 'Eyes Wide Shut'. His radio plays 'I Only Have Eyes For You' and 'I'm In The Mood For Love', both featured in 'EWS'.
-
In the end,
Mommy loves boy.
Boy becomes "human".
Closure.
'nuff said. -
(****spoilers****)
The ending obviously is open to much interpretation, but the triumph of the movie is that we end up caring about what happens to the boy. Anything that can sit under water through a freeze thaw cycle and remain operational after 2000 years is not human. David is a robot, programmed to respond to stimuli. At the end, why should we (or the mecha/aliens) care to grant David his wish? Granting his wish satisfies our needs, but is nothing more than giving David a stimulus to respond to, which he does. The fact that we would debate whether he became a real boy is the success of the movie, because as humans we care so much, even when we should know that the object of our affection is artificial. The Flesh Fair scene should have made this clear - - the humans are excited by the destruction of the robots because the humans think the robots are real (why else subject the robots to specific torture, such as being drawn and quartered?) But, of course, the robots are not intelligent or human, and feel nothing upon their destruction, nor should we (or the Flesh Fair attendees) feel anything when they are destroyed or when David meets his "mother" again.
Similarly, 2000 years to David is meaningless to him, but if we care about his long wait then we have fallen for the belief that the robot can be intelligent and can sense or feel love or time or humor. A robot may tell a joke, or may laugh at a joke, but does it get the joke? David, when all is said and done, may act like he loves, and may act like he is loved, but he does not "know" anything; any concern we have is, in fact, an artificial feeling for him. In the end, until we should rightfully care about an artificial robotic doll (David, Teddy, anything), then artificial intelligence has not been achieved.
Finally, as Timmer33 pointed out, the "aliens" at the end bear undeniable resemblances to Close Encounters, right down to the silhouette effect. Perhaps Spielberg was unsettled on whether to make them aliens or mechas, and finally had to rely on his PR machine to inform the audience of this after the film was made. I think this was a major mistake by Spielberg because it was so obviously possible to mistake them for aliens for so many reasons. There should have been no ambiguity about that (and, indeed, his PR's insistence that they are mechas underscores that point that no ambiguity was intended), yet the overwhelming initial and fair reaction is that they are aliens. The Close Encounters knock off is the most blatant clue. If Spielberg really intended them to be mechas, he should have avoided the CE reference or just been blatant about it. I accept that they are mechas, but only because I have read that they are. No film should require you to read an article about a press conference to determine who or what a character is. If there are any DVD alterations, I'd expect Spielberg to correct that mistake.
-
Harry, no matter what anyone says, you are as true a film critic as anyone out there. Though I don't agree with you about 50% of the time, for the most part, your reviews are passionate and thoughtful. Whatevever these guys say, you are a vital presence in the film world. I disagree with you about the ending: I though it was perfect. What if the film would have begun when his mother gave birth to his brother, and then followed the relationship through too when he is put in a coma, and replaced with David. She eventually would have accepted David as her son(maybe), and then, The End. It would have seemed fucked up. Not right. Icky and kind of twisted, because we knew that she was giving her love to a machine who would never truly love her, although it seemed he did. At the end of the film, his mother was as artificial as he was. She had no memory of anything, and I'm not even sure if she knew who he was. She was created to fill the hole in him like he was created for her. Creap? Yes. Just like the rest of the movie. I felt empty and strange as I left the theatre. A movie has not made me feal that way in quite some time. Pretty thought provoking stuff,
Also, on another note, I friggen' loved teddy. "Don't do it David. You'll get in trouble." That thing was HAL put into the body of a teddy bear. At one point I said aloud in the theater, "dear God, I love that thing." What a haunting little creation. I actually think that bear truly loved David, and that other little shit kid knew it. It was not a perfect movie, but I will see it again, if anything to watch that serious little bear tell it how it is. -
A.I. is the most intelligent movie out there now and one of the best sci-fi films in years, point blank. Also, that "contrived Spielbergian" ending was in Ian Watson's treatment before Spielberg's involvement. The character of the mother, when reincarnated, was not "programmed" by the future-mecha (not aliens, mind you). The one that spoke to David told him that they were able to pull a "sentient memory stand" from the remnants of D.N.A. So why did the mother only remember David? Because he was there and, in a way, "imprinted" on him, drawing out all those memories. Furthermore, one would come to think she held strong regrets about abandoning David so long ago. Such a strong emotion would rise to the top or, from a spiritual outlook, this was her second chance, a healing of her soul. I'll say it again. Cut Steven Spielberg a break. There is no other movie out there asking these kinds of questions or stirring up philosophical converation AT ALL. Just because everyone wants flowers and fanfare doesn't mean it'll make a great movie. A.I. is a great movie and I think time will bear the fact of it.---Dw. Dunphy's "Drivers of the Plague" now online. --- http://gateway-sf-magazine.com/plague-drivers.html
-
This is what makes the ending work: Spielberg was the director! If Stanley had directed the movie, everyone would be crowing about what a great, dark, disturbing fairy tale of a movie A.I. was, and what a creepy and sad ending it had. There would be no discussion at all. With the baggage and expectation that comes with Spielberg, many (like myself, at first), are gonna interpret the ending as an attempt at a happy denoument. But I'm beginning to believe, after reading many of these posts, that the ending is enigmatic at best, and probably bleaker than I could have guessed. Love the fact that at the beginning of the film, humans are creating a robot to help humans deal with emotional issues, and at the end robots are creating humans to help a robot deal with its emotional issues. That's the best argument for needing the ending as it stands, and not stopping at the ferris wheel. But the debate as to whether the human the robots created was real or programmed, and in general whether the ending was happy or not, would be non-existant if Kubrick had directed it. He wrote the damn story, and knew it would work best directed by someone with Spielberg's talent and reputation. Brilliant!
-
If harry wanted the movie to end with David in the amphibomocopter (simpsonian slip) he should just look back a few hundred years to John Keat's ode on a grecian urn. Spielberg is kind enough to take us somewhere we (movie viewers and humankind) have never been before in art...that i know of. Like it or leave it, Spielberg is not merely talking about what it would take for a futuristic machine to become a human but what it means to be human.
-
Just for the record, since the issue seems to keep coming up, there is a NY Times article from two years ago that details very clearly what Kubrick intended for AI. http://www.nytimes.com/library/film/071899kubrick-ai.html
(You'll need to get free NY Times id & password to look at it.) What the article shows is that AI IS the movie Kubrick intended, and Kubrick spent 22 years working on it. The ending was one Kubrick actually adamantly insisted on over at least one writer's furious objections. So the facts indicate that AI is actually an incredible partnership between Spielberg and Kubrick. In AI, Spielberg brings to life a story that Kubrick struggled a good part of his life to achieve.
In any case, in my humble opinion, AI is a truly worthy successor to 2001: A Space Odyssey, and may well be one of the best movies I've ever seen.
-
Harry and many other people seem to have missed what was Allen Hobby's goal in the beginning of the film. He stated that by programming David to love he could then, based on that emotion, grow and experience other emotions.
Love would be the starting point, the basis for a sentient robot. This seems to have worked. David destroyed the other David he encountered out of jealousy and rage. This was not programmed this was felt, this was something that came from David.
All who say that the story doesn't work or that it's completely cruel are wrong. Yes, it is cruel that David is imprinted in that way, but it is wrong for Harry to say that he can never grow up. David's emotional palette grows with new experiences and how those experiences react to the love he feels. if David had not been obsessed with the Blue Fairy he could have possibly grown out of that love. Maybe even come to resent his "mother."
(also did anyone else see the similarity between David destroying the other David and the primitive ape swinging his bone weapon in 2001. It proves my point I believe) -
One important consideration to remember when judging movies is how long the movie stays with you after viewing it. Do you walk out of the theater thinking about what's for dinner, or do you relive scenes, or even discuss what was meant by this or that?
AI stayed with us for DAYS afterwards! Visions of Manhattan underwater, David being chased through the woods, buried under the ferris wheel underwater still flash through my mind. But... talking about whether a woman could fall in love with a machine, the whole idea of the brutality people showed towards this new minority, etc. are things my wife and I still talk about!
Did the movie succeed? Like all GOOD Science Fiction it posed questions... questions about society, about the future, but, more importantly, questions about ourselves.
Was it good - yes.
Was it great - YES! YES! YES! -
The wolf-bikers were part of the travelling carnival. They were entertainers. Of course there bikes will be made up to look a little cheesy. It's the like the WWF. They also serve to underline that the movie is a fairy-tale. They are the dangerous wolves in the dark mysterious woods. Dr. Know is like a the mcdonalds of info-booths. There are booths all over the world. His design makes sense when you are trying to reach people all over the world, and need a freindly, easily recognizable face.
-
if you honestly think those are aliens then you dont even need to be commenting on this movie
-
if you honestly think those are aliens then you dont even need to be commenting on this movie
-
Harry, thanks for at least thinking about your review before posting the usual "Spielberg has lost it!" Pavlovian response people have to this movie.
People have difficulty with AI for many reasons; partly the expectations set up by both Spielberg's and Kubrick's previous movies, and partly because certain elements (primarily the Pinnochio references and the ending) appear to scream "Don't think!" when they actually are screaming "Think!"
All you have to do is think about the dialogue in this movie and the information you are given to know what the beings at the end (who are NARRATING the film) are and whether the ending is happy or not. If you think the ending of Sunset Boulevard is happy, then A.I. has a happy ending--after all, the protagonists achieve their "dream" in both movies. But you have to think about what that dream is, what the character is, what their perceptions and capabilities are, and then think about how potentially empty that achievement is. If you want to know what the beings at the end of the movie are, look at the very first shot of David. Listen to Jude Law's line about why humans hate the robots. Look at the cybernetic company's LOGO. Think about what these "aliens" want from David and why they appear to be fulfilling his every wish and dream. Think about what his "mother" is in the final scenes.
I'm just amazed that the ending of this movie is being written off as unmotivated and easy. It is completely built into the narrative and it is far more painful than the dead end of showing David staring at the Blue Fairy forever. A.I. made me think more than any movie I've seen in the past decade, if ever. Any movie that raises the questions this movie does cannot be dismissed in movie-geek epithets. -
if you honestly think those are aliens then you dont even need to be commenting on this movie
-
what's up with this cold fairy tale nonsense? how could anyone consider such a sacchrine affair to be so "cold and melancholy"? the boy robot cries not once, but three times. he reunites with his mum after two and half hours of spewing emotional manipulative, robotic dialogue (and i liked haley joel). there's no open-endedness: its a fuzzy spielberg ending. he refused to make the hard decisions (like making joe more nutty or depicting a more tumultous world) that would have made this movie much more cold and real and science fiction, not some hacked up version of pinoccio (there's an 'h' in there, right). this movie was a horrible example of science fiction and i was utterly disappointed at its lack of thought-provoking material (face it, there wasn't any, especially compared to the veritable volumes of much better robot fiction and film) and realistic potential (to be sci-fi, its got to be recognizable.. no one bothered explaining anything in this piece of schlock. this film is rife with plot holes, unrecognizable themes, hamhanded writing, and debatable acting. but, seeing as how its a "kubrick" film, i'll probably appreciate its genius in a decade. right guys? great, i'll see you there.
-
It was muddled, pretentious, hypocritical, and badly directed. What more si there to say?
-
I've never seen anything like it before. I don't really watch/like too many Speilberg movies (except for E.T) so I didn't see any CLOSE ENCOUNTERS similarities.
Some questions..
His mom held his hand when they fixed him after eating spinache to comfort him so why did she toss him in the woods?
You don't do that to the ones you love.
Martin was such a little brat.
I'm disturbed by Henry.
He brought David home but didn't want her to love him????
What exactly did he bring David there for? He judged Monica for caring about him so she tried not to.
Teddy was awesome!!
I've never imagined a scene like the one where the robots fish for parts. My sister whispered to me "this is awesome" and all I could do was grin back. I loved it!
I can't stop thinking about it. I'm seeing it again tonight.
A thought..
wasn't the lady Joe slept with at the Flesh Fair??
I take it she felt ashamed then.. had mixed feelings and wanted to lash out at meccas.
Not all critics hated this movie.
ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY loved it. They've even incorprated the terms "meccha" and "orga" in their CATS & DOGS review.
At first I thought it would be better to end it with David finding the other robots but the ending is right.. Teddy watching David sleep. Awwww.
I read the games are going to involve Martin older, the little girl at the Flesh fair, the doctor, etc.
I hope they show other Davids? Do THEY love? Was David original?
-
THis is a direct quote from the 1999 NY Times article that I think sums it up pretty well.
*David's quest eventually takes him to a drowned New York City, where he finds the Pinocchio booth at Coney Island, complete with a model of the Blue Fairy, which David regards with reverential wonder. The story then jumps ahead thousands of years, to a future in which robots populate the world and humans are long extinct. David is discovered, his battery worn down, and revived by these inheritors of the Earth, who regard him as a link with a mythological past.
*
Jendia
-
Ending continued from the NY Times 1999 article.
It was the relationship between David and his mother that most occupied Kubrick and Ms. Maitland. An alcoholic whose Bloody Marys David would mix for her in a vain attempt to win her affection, the mother was the emotional center of the film.
At the story's conclusion, the robots that have inherited the Earth use David's memories to reconstruct, in virtual form, the apartment where he had lived with his parents. Because his memories are subjective, the mother is much more vividly realized than the father, and his stepsister's room is not there at all; it is just a hole in the wall.
For Ms. Maitland, the film would end with David preparing a Bloody Mary for his mother, the juice a brighter red than in real life: "He hears her voice, and that's it. We don't see him turn to see her." Kubrick, however, wanted a coda in which the new race of robots, because of a technological limitation, cannot keep the the mother alive after reviving her. The movie would end with David in his mother's bedroom, watching her slowly disappear.
-
I thought this review would be a 300k pure text full of emotional crap, but this one is only 15k!!!
-
I have a question for the group..
What is the symbolism of the "moon ship" that appeared before the "Flesh Fair"?
Did it had to do wit the fact that mankind was in their twilight years.
Maybe it was that men believed to so superior over machines that they should be treated like deities..
Any ideas? -
That's it! That's the answer!
The movie was written by a Vorlon, hence the ambiguity.
:D
I've had my say.
Enjoy.
Jendia -
Jul 05, 2001 12:19:13 PM CDT
kinda OT but, well, I think its an important point, and a questi
by entilzha proph
Now admitadly, I have not seen the film, but, why must david be considered a toy, always? If the film comments on this, then I suppose this will be unneeded, but after years of reading Asimov's stories, I still am annoyed with this idea of humanity must be above its creations, when clearly they can surpass us, and if they do, deserve the respect and equal treatment. At what point does or shoudl a "toy" become seen as a person? Yes, I realize that love is programeed, but well, the same coudl be said about ourselves - how many times have we said something to please someone simple to please them? I know I've done it Anyway, just something I wanted to point out (yes, I realize Bicentennial man was about that, but you can't have a film about robots/andriods that doesn't at least touch on the issue of human robotic seperation)
-
Jul 05, 2001 12:21:37 PM CDT
Kubrik's original ending was to have David watch his mother vani
by critical bill
-
SPOILER. DO NOT READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN A.I.
Gigolo Joe foreshadows the end of the film when he tells the boy "When they (humans) are gone, we will be the only ones left..." . As for the Blue Fairy, I see it as a metaphor for how all intelligent creatures turn to supernatural explanatons for that which they don't understand. At the end, long past the time its relevant for him to become human (since there aren't any around), his wish is granted. Not by God (The Blue Fairy), but by others like him. Humans couldn't make David human, it took Mechas to do it. The irony is that David did not become human in any physical sense, basically his programming recieved input that made him 'think' he was human. But he remains a machine in a world of machines. Where he was once an outsider, he is now the norm. But his dedication to religious delusion prevents him from assimilating into the world he now occupies. He remains an outsider. A human manque' in a world of robots. There's a part of me, however, that thinks the whole last part of the film is a 'dream' David has. In the first scene someone wonders if Mechas can dream. Maybe they can? We could read the final act of the film as being David's dream. There's something angelic about the Mechas at the end - perhaps they are the angels of the Blue Fairy in David's imagination. These Mechas don't look like something a human could design, they've taken on a highly technological appearance. Perhaps they are Mechas of David's imagination. On another note, if you think about it, the whole film is narrated by Ben Kingsley, the voice of the Mecha who offers to revive David's mother. So in effect, the whole film is being 'told' by the Ben Kingsley Mecha to the other Mecha of the future. Anyhow, for me this film is as wonderful a puzzlebox of philosophical ideas as 2001: A Space Odyssey. -
We have to remember that A.I was Kubrick's baby. However, I think Spielberg did an outstandiing job with this idea. Yes, it is not 100% Kubrick, but a perfect marriage of the two filmakers.
I saw the movie opening night and it is still very much fresh in my memory. Spielberg has accomplished a very thought provoking film. There are moments that have Kubrick written all over it as well as that Spielberg touch. This is a movie that can be debated for hours with no true answer. I only wish we had more movies like this. This is not a mindless summer movie. Although I myself like to watch a mindless fun movie now and then, this movie was like a breath of fresh air. I didn't know how to feel after it ended, and I LOVE THAT! I did come to the conclusion that it was definately not a Happy ending. I was very haunted by the notion that technology rules the world and is in search of answers to their past and their creation just as we are today... -
that even thought I (being English) have to wait until September to see AI, I think it must be a great experience to witness. Not many film reviews get such a large Talk-Back with so many seemingly relevant and constructive comments. Hence why I think AI must be a great film - it is being debated and deconstructed greatly, a sure sign to me of lasting appeal. Harry's review appealed to me in that he was obviously thinking about the film some time after seeing it, maybe a good sign too in this summer of no-brainers.
-
A lot of people are still fighting with the opinion that the creatures at the end of the movie are aliens for various reasons, instead of mechas. People say that they look like aliens (on the other side, people say they look like the "peacock" logo). They aren't either one. The only way to describe their shape is "humanoid." Aliens just happen to usually be presented as humanoid, and the logo was meant to look like a human/mecha. The future mechas simply evolved from old mechas, much like living things evolve. In fact, the evolution of the mechas' appearance is like a continuation of our evolution from apes-- standing taller and skinnier, leaning back instead of forward. As for the subtitled language, the mechas were communicating through silent messages transmitted through the air waves. They touch each other to share the images because they have higher bandwidth that way. They talk to David in english because that's the way he communicates--he can't receive their transmissions.
-
Spielberg should take up Kubrick's practice of cutting material from films after they have been released. My major problem with the ending was it was not explained very well. It seemed as if they were trying to create a sense of urgency with a faster pace at the end but it ended up coming out as a cram-it-down-our-throats-now explain-it-later type thing. You can only create humans for a day... more information please. Why. It doesn't make any sense. I am surprised Spielberg didn't go all out and make it where his mom was able to live forever in happiness.
Ps. I want a director's commentary track to figure out what the hell he was thinking.
PPs. It would have been better if like in the Kubrick's screenplay where David made his mother alcoholic drinks.
PPPs. The worst ending to a great movie: Grosse Pointe Blank. -
At the end... When he laughed, and cried and all that, it wasn't a programed laugh or cry, it was from him. He cried because he wanted too, not because some program told him too. He was as real as you or I, he just didn't have the soft gooey parts inside. And the soft gooey parts are not what make us human.
-
Spielberg would have skipped the cheesy narration and come up with a visual way to show several thousand years passing, then CUT TO David in his frozen sarcophagus. Someone or something starts to chisel away at the ice above him. (Note: we never see who or what it is, although hints are given.) David wakes up to find himself back at home. He meets the Blue Fairy(cut the lame expository monologue), who tells him that he will finally be with his mother. She appears and David's wish comes true. The final image is of David, still frozen in the amphibicopter. David is actually dreaming. He will dream for eternity.
-
Jul 05, 2001 2:08:26 PM CDT
A.I. doesn't work as Fairy Tale(nothing supernatural) or SciFi(w
by antoniusbloc
On a different site, someone posts this concern about AI:" I was thinking, and another thing really bothers me now: how can they "program" a machine to love? Was David REALLY loving, or did he just APPEAR that way?" That bothered me too.That's kind of the point i was trying to make in my earlier post about the current top AI scientist at MIT , Marvin Minsky, who points out that we don't even know for sure if another human being is conscious of what he's doing and feeling, or if he's just going through the motions. If Artifical Intelligence is ever realized in any way, he acknowledges we will have the same problem with an artifical being. Hence the question Harry, Was David REALLY loving, or did he just APPEAR that way? Therefore, what bothered me more about this movie is that they never even seem to attempt to answer or explore that question. A question that should drive the plot of a serious AI movie, which I believed this was trying to be, and failed.(NOT A FAIRY TALE) That question seems to be inexplicably dismissed in the opening scene of the film. Instead it is replaced by a question that just seemed out of context, and contrived. If you really listen to the dialogue, the question really comes out of nowhere and doesn't logically follow what was being discussed. This is the question of whether or not humans can love something back that is programmed to unconditionally love us. By making this the central question, it's as if Spielberg wanted the audience identifying and caring for David vs. his intolerant creators to be the failed goal of the film. The movie almost forces us to accept as true the premise that it is possible to program data into a robot that give it the ability to love. The viewer must also accept that we as humans know enough about love, what it truly is, in order to turn it into some type of data to program in a machine, ignoring another great question, how do we define love? Did the film want us to simply accept that David's actions represent real love? I think the film did want us to accept this, to try and make us empathize and pity David for not having his "perfect" love returned. That is the reason for the contrived almost irrelevant question. In my view, that is why the movie fails.How can we empathize and pity an artifical being whose actions don't reflect a true understanding of love, hence another concern raised by someone on a different site: "And if he just appeared that way (which makes MUCH more sense), why should we care whether or not his love is reciprocated? He's just a computer program... " Well the fact is, we don't really care, and the movie never tries to answer if he just "appeared" that way, but, in my view, just wanted us to accept that his love was true, even more so than his creators. Well I shouldn't say "we dont care", but I know I didnt care. Someone questioned me for describing David's actions as those of a one track minded brat, but that's how he looked to me. The type of "love" David seemed to have would be considered obsessive and possessive for a human. In fact, David's actions never seem to reflect what true love is in any way. If we can define what true love is in some real way, don't we associate it with our actions, that are usually selfless? We show we care by sacrificing our own wants and desires. David never sacrifices anything, not just for his mother, but his actions never reflect any love for his fellow mecha's or any other character,not in any defining way. In fact, he violently "kills" an identical mecha of himself. David doesn't sacrifice hiw own need or desires for others, he is all about his own needs and desires. His love looks more like a psychotic obsession. At most it is instinct comparable to the level of that of an animal. Imprinted is the perfect word. Ok, he's imprinted, but does he ever LEARN to love? He never seems to LEARN anything beyond his instinctual imprint,and no one really attempts to teach him. Rather than emphasizing him being programmed to love, he should have been programmed to LEARN to love, or to LEARN to have emotions. As a result, it becomes difficult for the viewer to care about David's relationships with other characters. So, if we don't care about the relationship between him and his mother, we don't care about his quest to become a real boy. I don't think we are really ever satified or convinced that he TRULY loved his mother. And how could we ask the mother to care for him, when she has the same doubts. Not only that, David was imprinted to only love her. How could she love something that didn't or couldn't love her real son or her husband? The "relationship" was simply an imprint...it was superficial, resulting in the goal of David to be superficial, along with the contrived plot. What actions between the mother and artificial boy were supposed to represent real love? David constantly repeating or writing "i love you mommy?"? It doesn't matter because the film isn't concerned with this question. The film is more concerned with how badly humans treat their creations when they have feeling too. Wait, only David has feelings..... or some of them do,it appears..... well some of the older ones can feel physical pain.... well fear is imprinted on all of them. Who knows, because no consistent behavior among mechas are shown. Or, some whould reply, "who cares?", because it was meant to be a fairy tale, right? If so, then it fails even worse. For those of you that think it can be called a fairy tale just because a virtual statue of Pinnochio's Blue Fairy talks, need to be reminded what defines a fairy tale. A fairy tale must contain the supernatural... something outside or beyond nature and beyond the physical must exist or occur. Not only is the supernatural absent in the story, but it is ridiculed. I read somewhere that Kubrick wanted it to be a fairy tale. I don't think Spielberg went that way. This is a science fiction film, with bad science. For those who believe this was a fairy tale please point out one scene or character that supports this view. Some have pointed out that at the very end, David becomes a boy because he sleeps. So suddenly magic and the supernatural plays a role? I doubt it. If this is truly what was meant, then yes you can call it a fairy tale, but a poorly written one. Even in fairy tales certain "truths" within the that fantasy world must be established early and at least foreshadowed. Nowhere is any type of magic established as "real" in the fictional world of this story. The point is i don't think Spielberg, a great storyteller, meant to show he magically became a real boy. If anything, these super advanced mechas, (who speak in a condescending way about their creators, ridiculing their superstitions) made him as close to one as possible. The problem is, do we really care at that point? All we get are characters we don't care about, and over explaining of how humans were too stupid to survive(Yet humans were smart enough to create a superior intelligence? ). Dr. Hobby is another pitiful character, almost like Dr. Frankenstein trying to play God and revive his bride, but at least Dr. Frankenstein is meant to be portrayed as mad and as one creating a freak of nature and science because of his obsession with conquering death. If you read anything about the real leading Artificial Intelligence scientists, such as Marvin Minsky, they seem to have a similar obsession. They believe the "information" or data in our brain will someday be able to be "downloaded" on to an electronic brain, and put into some kind of robot, so our bodies die, but our minds live. Scary. The aliens in Dark City believed something like this too, and it's a great scene when the main character explains that they were looking for the mind or soul of humans in the wrong place(pointing to his head), maybe they should have been looking here(pointing to his heart). Hobby seems to have a similar obsession as Frankenstein, but does Spielberg mean to portray him this way? I don't think so, especially when he shows how highly "evolved" AI's become. In short, the movie doesn't seem to work on any level, except for having some nice effects, and some good acting performances. As SciFi, as a fairy tale, as an adventure, it fails. Those who are giving glowing praise are either in Phantom Menace like denial and they just really wanted this movie to work so they will find any redeeming qualities. Or, they are suckers for sentimental scenes, like when the mother leaves, and when they are reunited. There really is not much depth here. True questions arise, but they are a result of the interesting subject of AI as a topic, not the story itelf, and not from issues that the storyteller meant to raise. I dont' know if the storyteller knew what he wanted to do. The confusion of the story was more a reflection of the confusion of the one who wrote it, not the inability of the viewer to comprehend it.
-
THANK YOU! You are the first one to see exactly what I see - the reversal of roles between the robots and the humans....it did indeed have a thoughtful (and not Disney yipeee happy) ending
-
Ok, I'm sure someone else pointed this out already, but the ending was actually Kubrick's revised conception... a coda he wanted to introduce because one of his screenwriting advisors suggested (though I disagree with her suggestion) that you cannot have a quest achieved go unrewarded in a fairy tale. One of the posts in El Cosmico's review has the url.... anyway... I'm recycling some of my words here because I believe I already said in the other talkback what I needed to say about this film. Most of the "first wave" of moviegoers who rushed out to see AI consisted of geeks who actually think technology has served us well, rather than needlessly complicated our lives. Therefore, it's not likely that they would understand the message of this film, nor appreciate the context in which the seemingly-Spielberg ending appears, and why. I could be wrong, but this is what I believe: The ending almost began as this sort of Terry Gilliam thing... and yet appeared to reverse course back into feel-good Spielbergness. However, Spielberg is not a complete moron... I'm not saying the man doesn't make mistakes... I don't LOVE this film, but I like it... I trust that a man as steeped in film lore and classical cinematographic storytelling as Spielberg would have the respect for Kubrick to have spent YEARS studying Kubrick's technique. I think that's why I accepted the film for what it was... we probably constrain the meaning of the ending too much to what we think spielberg would do, without thinking of it's actual meaning. In essence, the ending is actually about the fact that he does become a "real boy"... because, instead of simply breaking down and ceasing to function... he dies... and, most remarkably, by his own choice... which, for anyone who's ever read Asimov... is impossible for a machine to do. The distinguishing mark of living things is not only that they search for things that don't exist, such as God, or the Blue Fairy... but that all living things die. Thus, by his own action, and with a little help from future mechas... Haley Joel Robot finally got his wish, and decided he outlived his usefulness.
-
Fairy Tales are not by nature supernatural. Although they may have elements of the supernatural. Fairy Tales are fantastical. Grimm's Fairy Tales were cautionary tales told to children to keep them from wandering in the woods. To be sure I was using the word correctly, I looked "fantastical" up in the dictionary. Webster's says fantastical is "conceived or seemingly conceived by an unrestrained imagination; odd and remarkable; bizarre; grotesque" Couldn't better describe AI myself.
Really, Dreamworks ought to use that quote on the posters for AI, giving credit to Webster's Dictionary. -
It's in our DNA and built by millions of years of evolution. Why do people have a problem with David being programmed to love when everyone is? Also, he's not programmed to mimic the emotions of love, but to experience them himself. That was the whole point of the beginning Dr. Hobby monologue. I can't believe somebody could miss such an obvoius plot point. I think the depth of this film hidden by the surface story is throwing people off because they don't expect it from Speilberg. This movie requires you to READ BETWEEN THE LINES if you are going to fully enjoy it.
-
Jul 05, 2001 2:37:01 PM CDT
THos weren't aliens at the end, they are what the mechas have ev
by darthrage
Does that make any sense? I never thought about it that way but thats what my friend told that was his theory. Whaddya think? But we'll know for sure when we watch the featurette on its DVD release 6 months from now. PEACE!
-
I still haven't seen this film yet but I keep hearing the same thing, "the ending sucks, oh God the ending sucks, it fucks up the whole movie, it should have ended sooner, it would have been a great film if it had just ended at that one scene!" Even Roger Ebert basically said that. He said for most of the movie he thought it was going to be a masterpiece, and then... My question, is, if the movie is good before that, and they have a good ending but it keeps going on, couldn't I just walk out at just the right time and think it was an amazing film? Couldn't we edit the ending off when it comes out on video and enjoy it then? I could be wrong but that seems to be what everyone is saying. Anyone? Anyone? Let me know if that's a good plan or not so I can enjoy the film.
-
It's worth it.
-
The guy spewing the BS about DNA missed the point of my post. The question is "can anything be PROGRAMMED to love?" whether human or artificial. The answer is no, because it is a contradiction. If you have to be programmed to love, then it is not real love. Hence, the more important question of what real love is. For a being to love, to Truly love, then it must be a conscious being. David is imprinted. His actions never display real love. When he stares at his mother crying for her real son, David is jealous. That's not love. Love would be him feeling upset that his mother was upset, no matter the reason. David is imprinted with instinct to obsessively be affectionate toward and seek affection from his mommie. Does he have the capacity to really love? Is David's love growing? If so, what are the examples? I don't see it grow. The love remains a single minded journey that is self serving for his own wants and desires. I'm not saying these questions had to be answered(of course they can't) but the major problem is that they are not explored. And the other guy who looked up the word "fantastical". ok, now look up fairy tale.
-
I never said I didn't understand either movie. I'd like to think I understood both. I was referring to the type of person that says (with every right to) "I don't know art, but I know what I like." In AI's case, and 2001's, not only did I know art, I liked it. And I would watch AI again before I watched 2001 again anyway.
-
David acted as any child would act. Every child seeks affection from their mother and becomes jealous when their brothers or sisters is shown favor. By your definition no child can truly "love" their parents, because they just do. We are programmed to love because it usually creates stable environments to live in, which has given us better chances for survival as a society. Do you think there is any logical reason for love, other than that? Just because he doesn't rise to your idealized version of what "real love" is doesn't mean his emotions were false.
-
I looked up fairy tale. Webster's says "A story, usually for children, abot, elves, hobgoblins, dragons, fairies, or other magical creatures." Then I took it a step further and looked up magical. here's what the dictionary said about that. Produced by, or as if by magic". It is clearly stated in the end narration of AI that David transcended as was finally able to sleep, where he slept forever in his mother's arms, essentially dying. Something he was not programmed to do, something that it was impossible to do. What is that if not magic. Now were just getting into semantics. If you didn't get, or appreciate AI, there's nothing I can do to change that. I'm just sorry you wasted ten bucks. My money was well spent.
-
Jul 05, 2001 4:11:40 PM CDT
Teddy deserves the Oscar nomination for best supporting actor !!
by skullgod
So if David is Pinnochio, then Teddy must by Jiminy Cricket huh ? They should give Teddy his own movie !!!
-
Jul 05, 2001 4:25:34 PM CDT
Great Talkback for a Must See Film Plus Thoughts About Best Acto
by chicagofilm
First off, I am a Kubrick fan and have enjoyed all of his films. In many respects, the discussions raised here by both sides remind me of what people said after "Eyes Wide Shut." I personally loved the film and found it to be a fascinating tale of sexuality and trust. At the same time, a former co-worker of mine was positive that it was the worst film on the planet. If you go further back and look at reviews of when "2001" and "Barry Lyndon" came out, you will see the same thing. Either you love or hate a Kubrick film (yes, this was technically not a Kubrick film, but considering the amount they collaberated, it's close) -- few people fall in between. So, back to "A.I." which I found to be extremely provoking and entertaining. After seeing it a second time (which, I highly recommend) I found that my biggest problem with the film is Spielberg held on to a shot too long in several places or decided to make a couple of the scenes ramble too much with dialogue. To me, it looks like he could have cut out about five minutes and this would have made the film outstanding instead of just great. The one common thread that you see in reviews on rottentomatoes.com is Osment's performance. One reviewer absolutely hated the film but said that he enjoyed HJO's work in the movie. This leads me to believe that HJO is likely going to get a nomination for best actor and has a decent shot at winning it. The only other performances that I have seen that come close are by Ben Kingsley (not sure if he was a leading or supporting actor in "Sexy Beast") and Guy Pearce for "Memento." Of course, the movie season is still young, so things could obviously still change.
--charles -
Just saw AI this morning. I have to say that the movie rocked, not in a pulse-pounding "Raiders of the Lost Ark" way, but in a mental way. In this summer of celluloid shit (please, God, don't let "Planet of the Apes" suck like I think it will) "AI" is a gem. Any movie that gets people to thinking more about the storyline than the special effects simply rules. But then again I don't think people think nearly as much as they should.
This is a dark, cruelty-laden movie, one I might not take overly-sensitive children to see.
Now, on to "AI (***SPOILERS***:
1)I found the David character to be creepy through the entire film. His single-mindedness really made me aware that the character was a machine, not a person, albeit a very smart machine. Osment's what, 12? He's got a bright future if he stays away from the Viper Room.
2)I thought the narration at the end (indeed, all of the narration) was condescending. To my way of thinking, a filmmaker should be able to get his/her point across strictly via images and dialogue without resorting to a narrator. A cut from the amphibicopter sitting under water to a shot of Manhattan locked in ice would have been enough to establish that a lot of time had passed.
3)Although the mechas were written as sympathetic characters it was obvious that they were not, in fact, equivalent to human beings. The nanny mecha at the Flesh Fair, for instance, was almost as single-minded as David. The most "human" of the mecha characters was, IMHO, Joe, who actually showed a sense of self-preservation (yet allowed himself to be suckered into a search for the Blue Fairy, proof to me that Joe's programming isn't all that up to snuff, or at least that the "common-sense" problems in artificial intelligence research haven't been solved at the time this movie takes place). Yet even the Joe character was obviously not human, and I mean in ways more apparent than makeup and a slick hairdo. Cudos to Spielberg for writing the mechas as slightly less than human and not letting them become cutesy.
4) The ending. ***SPOILERS***
If the narration hadn't been present I would have liked the ending more than I did. It seems to me that that was really David's mother reconstructed at the end, with memories slightly "edited" by the super mechas in order to make David happy. With no husband or orga son around she could devote her entire day to David, which she did, and in doing so was able to finally tell him she loved him (which it was apparent that she did in the first third of the movie). By making him happy he became "real", at least to himself, and isn't that where it counts? That's why he can sleep (this is one of the first traits we're shown that distinguishes him from a "real" boy). David will now be able to go on and develop further, his quest over. Perhaps he'll grow up.
And yes, those are mechas at the end, not aliens. This is clearly telegraphed by Joe: "All that will be left is us." They're digging into Manhattan because they, like David, love us. One of them even says something to the effect of "Now that the humans are gone there's a lack of spirit". They'll keep David (and Teddy, it's apparent that they regard Teddy as more than a toy when they say "These robots met living humans!", the plural including Teddy)happy, because of their links to us.
5.) Teddy. "I am NOT a toy." Then what exactly ARE you, Teddy? Is it possible that Teddy has evolved a bit since he was purchased? When I have kids I want them to have a Teddy.
6.) Professor Hobby struck me as a scumbag, making a buck off of images of his dead son.
7) Just say "no" to Dr Know. -
Just my own comments on AI: I enjoyed it more than I thought I would have. It is a breakthrough film for Spielberg, his first serious sci-fi/fantasy film, in the same way Schindler's List was his breakthrough dramatic film. I did have problems with it, such as why didn't the robot have an alimentary canal of sorts so that he would participate in the communal act of eating? The food he swallowed could have been deposited in a little sack that could have been pooped out safely into the toilet. Again, this would be for sociable reasons, not nutritious ones. Obviously it would bypass the problems he had with the spinach. That this is a prototype, a "beta" model if you will, would explain some problems with his programming and design, but this is a major one. (I also would think cars could drive themselves by this period of time.) My greatest complaint are the tears David spouts at the end of the film. How did a robot suddenly gain lachrymose glands, or their mechanical equivalent? Wouldn't they have been there at the beginning? That was the biggest false moment in the film for me. But it did not ruin the film for me. Nor the narration at the end, which I hope Spielberg will scrap when he reedits this film for DVD, etc.
BTW, David grabs Martin because he got hurt by one of Martin friends. He does that when he feels threatened. He did that a couple more times in the film, begging the person he grabs to protect him. When they fell in the water, he was probably too confused by what was happening to him to let his brother go. Prototypical behavior (pun intended)
The Flesh Fair made sense too. We humans are a violent species that loves the spectacle of destruction and mayhem. This is soccer hooliganism/WWF exuberance directed toward robots. I liked the fact that Spielberg didn't try to explain the context of the Flesh Fair, but instead let us try to figure it out for ourselves.
The tears aside, the ending did work for me. How will David react when he awakes to find his mommy gone forever, assuming that he does wake up? This has the irony and ambiguity one would expect from a Kubrick film, as oppposed to ending it with David's subaquarian prayer to the Blue Fairy. Though the film did have inconsistencies--why didn't the cops take the amphibocopter with them when they apprehended Joe, for example--it is an intriguing fairy tale told in a science fiction world.
-
Jul 05, 2001 4:41:24 PM CDT
Do you pussies cry every time your mac crashes? He was just a f
by cabron
Did you feel bad for HAL too? You fuckin hypocrites.
-
Jul 05, 2001 4:44:03 PM CDT
Do you pussies cry every time your mac crashes? He was just a f
by cabron
Did you feel bad for HAL too? You fuckin hypocrites.
-
THe movie came out in the 80's!
Not as good, but worth comparing.... Look it up on IMDB -
Here's food for thought. Too many viewers seem to think that the super mechas in the end are actually aliens. If you watch the movie closely, when David makes his very 1st entrance in the film. The front door opens and he is a blurred image of the future sleek looking mechas. It is almost as if we are catching a glimpse of what the future mechas will eventually evolve into.
-
The entire 3rd act of this movie is completely intertwined in the rest of the movie - so much so that to completely dismiss it as tripe is to lose a large part of the story. So much of this movie is symbolism and metaphor and foreshadowing. So many of the "plot holes" that some have brought up are easily answerable by a complete understanding of the entire movie as it stands now. If you dismiss the 3rd act, you lose the David frozen/Martin frozen parallel. And Joe's comments about mechas inheriting the world tells you flat out that the creatures are super-mechas. And so many other details that you simply don't catch on 1st or 2nd viewing. This movie demands multiple viewings.
-
Yes, Harry, I agree that the ending is very artificial. Simply because those are artificial beings (yes, mechas, Bonnie Curtis confirms it in a Chicago Sun Times piece)implanting an artificial dreamlike state into an artificial being. That cannot be closure since, as you said, David is an artificial being and cannot simply understand that Mommy's dead. Sure he's dreaming, but he was programmed to do so. Therefore, the underlying irony of the whole damn ending, which makes it lyrical and haunting, is that none of it is real. The ultimate Kubrick mindscrew with the Spielberg gloss and John Williams thrown in for measure.
-
I really don't understand why there's all the fuss about the ending. The entire first two thirds are about humanity's search for what makes it unique. The ending suggests that the machines man has built will continue that search long after man is gone - the ability to believe, dream, and feel are so truly unique they are worthy of study.
Second, when was the last time you saw a science-fiction film convincingly portray a post-human society? The design of everything, the robots and their graceful transports . . . meticulously designed, masterfully animated, both logical and fantastical. Fantasy movies are supposed to take you someplace you've never been; this one did.
Finally - Harry, you admit at the beginning that it's a fairy tale. So of course there's going to be a happily ever after. I don't understand why so many people have this deep-seated need for David's quest to end in some sort of bleak fashion. If it's because life is like that - well, it ain't life, it's a freakin' movie. And happy doesn't necessarily mean cheesy - the movie comes to a logical and somewhat unexpected conclusion, betraying neither the characters nor the underlying themes (completing them, in fact).
Bottom line - quit being such a post-modern sourball. Quit confusing a happy ending with a cop-out ending. Go see the movie again, marvel at the visuals, discuss the philosophy. A.I..is a rare movie indeed, one with a heart, a brain, and courage.
Click your heels together three times and say "Not everyone has to be a pessimist." -
Good review Harry, but for my sanity will you please start using "'ve", or "have", instead of "of"?
It's "As for what film would Kubrick _have_ made?", or "As for what film would _Kubrick've_ made?". You've done this several times in this piece. Damn it Harry, stop contributing to illiteracy! At least have someone read over your stuff before posting. I appreciate your subjective opinion on movies, as well as your well thought out reviews (even though I may not agree with some of them), but this is inexcusable!!!!!! -
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/faq/index2.html
-
First mistake in reviewing a film like AI, Harry. Not right after you've seen it! Throughout your rambling review, one thing is clear....this movie was successful at getting you to THINK about it. I'm sorry it disappointed you in so many ways.
AI is the best movie of the year so far and not as much a failure as some of the reviewers here would have us think. One thing that really gets me about the tone of the reviews on this site for AI is they whine more about what it ISN'T instead of focusing on what it IS. The other main frustration is when you folks rag on something in the film it's like you weren't even paying attention...e.g.: everyone harping on the ending. The ending makes perfect sense if you PAY ATTENTION throughout the film.
From Ben Kingsley's opening narration to his finally appearing to David towards the end of the film and granting his wish in the best way they could, it's clear....the AI's evolve into something more considerate and "feeling" than the humans who created them. It's an ending I think Kubrick might've appreciated actually.
I'm beginning to think that when the consensus here among the reviewrs is bad...the film might actually be worth checking out...
PLEASE you guys....start leaving your "shoulda been this way" attitude home when you check out these films and be a little more aware of what's on the screen as opposed to what you wanted there.
Okay...enough ranting on that topic....
One last thing, Harry.....go see this film again in a week or so now that the bubble of expectation and what your cohorts said about it has ebbed away. Maybe it'll come together better for you. I know when I see a film as complex as this it takes time to process it all.....
Just a thought.... -
I find it odd that no one's really discussed the scene where David destroys his double. I mean, if we're supposed to feel so much for this "boy", how can we accept the fact that he's a murderer? I think this scene is important and I don't yet know whether it gels with or hinders the rest of the film.
-
I'm glad AI was made. If fortunes are going to be blown making movies, better that the money goes into ambitious, audacious, problematic, thought-provoking stuff like this than into insipid Bay/Bruckheimer/West fratboy nonsense. That said, it's still not too good a movie. Spots of genius marred by countless missteps. It has this intensely personal quality that veers over into selfishness, as if the director has no interest whatsoever in the audience. Coming from someone as relentlessly populist as Spielberg, this is fascinating, but not all that enjoyable. It's like watching someone else's unpleasant dream. David Lynch, Kurosawa, and Cronenberg have made this sort of thing work. Spielberg doesn't quite. Maybe because his take on "intensely personal" has room for celebrity cameos, million dollar CGI shots, and heart-wrenching orchestral crescendos--sort of a tough subconscious to relate to. I bet Michael Jackson loved it.
-
the first time i ever yelled a comment into a filled theater. whoever went to the beverly connection tuesday night 9.30 heard me: NOT BRILLIANT !!! yes, i was nice enough to wait until the credits rolled. may be i am mistaken but it seemed like a lot of mainstream media reviewers called this waste of my precious time a genious piece. so of course, naive as i am, i expected a lot. I MEAN A LOT. And, besides some cool technical stuff, got an annoying as ever Haley Joel and a whiny story with a knee-jerker predictable endless ending - just read Harry's review. Me, I am not as smart as Harry, but this is my proof why this movie sucks. My proof comes in form of questions:
1) Does anybody honestly believe that in the far future (circa 100 years from now), we're gonna wear the same lame suburban clothes as we do today or sleep in the same lame Ikea king size beds????
2) Wouldn't you RETURN/DESTROY a toy, a robot, whatever, even if it whines like Haley Joel, IF IT ALMOST KILLED YOU OR YOUR SON ???
3) Hello Steven, still alive up there in Brentwood? Are you seriously trying to sell me robot-beings (~1000s of years from now) that have the body shape of a Elle McPherson 100 times better? Why in the world would they? For what need? That is what finally pulled the plug on the movie for me. Yes, I am that shallow.
PS: For reviewer Glen: Why would I consider what a movie IS if the millions of things that is ISN'T ruin the whole experience. thinkaboutit! -
The first movie I've walked out of in a long time. I kind of enjoyed the first hour, but by the end of the second hour I couldn't take it anymore. I went to get lunch.
-
My first viewing I was somewhat disappointed with the film, and wasn't really moved by any particular scene. Oh, I enjoyed it, but it didn't "hit" me.
Second viewing was a different story. I noticed things I missed before - How David looked like the future mechas in the first shot of him, how Monica's breath could be seen during the abandonment scene but David's breathe could not, the shocked look on David's face when he look's though the face-plate of another David model only to see the first image HE could remember... namely the Cybertronics logo, the parallel between the frozen Martin and frozen David, finally, that this was all a story being told to us by one of the future mechas. It is even more obvious that everything after the future mecha touches David the second time (he convulses again) is virtual, taking place inside David's CPU.
The Mechas are watching on a viewer from above. And here ONLY here, we see David cry. It's all in his mind, folks.
Repeated viewings will convince you the ending is essential, the details are there for a reason. Nitpick the DNA/Space-Time technobabble? Not sloppy sf, it's there as a cover story to lie to David. It's actually quite an amazing ending, and I was truly moved by it.
-
The Movie was like three movies in One. 1st was parent's grieve and unability to come to terms with the world. What happens with the grief they get a replacement that can feel the void. Osment's Character is but a appliance to them but also a reminder to why its there in the first place 2nd movie is Human's inability to embrace new things. Fear of dying fear of being replaced.So what do we do as humans to these robots that pose a threat but not a threat just a human emotion of fear that these robots are better faster and could kill us. We kill them we destroy them. We Hate them. Osment Loves his mother only because hes programmed to but isnt that what love is? A Predetermined Code structure where certain lines have to be executed and a flow of instructions precede. His mother said those seven words and the program ran and he was told to love that person without question and without logic. Even after she left him in the forest he still loved her. Thats when I thought of Freud the whole relationship between imprinted mother and son in this movie. The Last scene with her and him in bed without the presence of the father because he didnt matter. David didnt love him and only her. His perfect dream would be him and her. When the voiceover started with David and Teddy under the ferris well I was ready to get my jacket because I felt thats a good ending and then it moves 2000 years into the future into some uneeded Alien involvment of digging David out and them using him as a anchor to the past to understand human beings. Whats to understand about the Human Condition. We are primitive strive for money,sex,power thats all so the whole speech between David and the Alien and the alien saying that humans are the secret to existence and understanding them will understand us almost made me lose it laughing. I will buy AI on DVD when it comes out because A)Deleted scenes theres gotta be something that adds something b)I Love Kubrick even though I dont feel he had much involvment in this in his so called notes it still has a touch of the master in there. Above all else this film is about Electronic boyu fucking his mama who dont love him
-
Jul 05, 2001 9:53:05 PM CDT
There may have been a spoiler warning that I missed on the main
by lenny nero
Or, at least, the ending you liked. And I was seeing it TOMORROW! DANG!
-
Perhaps I am alone in thinking this, but I personally have come to the conclusion that "A.I." is more than a great film. I believe it is one of THE great films. As in, one of the best, say, 150 films ever made. Does this comment sound naive and stupid? I'm sure it does. Does the simple fact that I pride myself on seeing ALL of 'the great movies' help justify me? Probably not. All I can say is that this movie is the first film I have ever seen that TRULY seems to be alive in itself. And, to be clear, I do not mean merely 'involving' and 'vivid' - I mean, this movie breathes with futile vigor, straining to become the first movie that surpasses film and becomes actual legend and experience. As with David, "A.I." fails to do this, but also as with David, "A.I." manages to become the closest possible thing - it manages to tell a story not just with pictures and words, but with existence. It links our cinema with all that is still to come. I believe "A.I." is far ahead of its time. I believe that "A.I." will one day be looked at as a universally acclaimed "great" motion picture. I believe it breaks ground and contains depth like few films I have ever seen. I know no one but me cares about all of this, but I only say it for one simple reason: though I am alone, I truly believe that "A.I." deserves to be stepped out on a limb for. Perhaps, in the real future, some of you can agree with me.
-
Perhaps I am alone in thinking this, but I personally have come to the conclusion that "A.I." is more than a great film. I believe it is one of THE great films. As in, one of the best, say, 150 films ever made. Does this comment sound naive and stupid? I'm sure it does. Does the simple fact that I pride myself on seeing ALL of 'the great movies' help justify me? Probably not. All I can say is that this movie is the first film I have ever seen that TRULY seems to be alive in itself. And, to be clear, I do not mean merely 'involving' and 'vivid' - I mean, this movie breathes with futile vigor, straining to become the first movie that surpasses film and becomes actual legend and experience. As with David, "A.I." fails to do this, but also as with David, "A.I." manages to become the closest possible thing - it manages to tell a story not just with pictures and words, but with existence. It links our cinema with all that is still to come. I believe "A.I." is far ahead of its time. I believe that "A.I." will one day be looked at as a universally acclaimed "great" motion picture. I believe it breaks ground and contains depth like few films I have ever seen. I know no one but me cares about all of this, but I only say it for one simple reason: though I am alone, I truly believe that "A.I." deserves to be stepped out on a limb for. Perhaps, in the real future, some of you can agree with me.
-
The first shot of David, the blurry backlit reveal with his distorted shape is the exact same as the evolved mechas who dig up David at the end. When I first saw it I thought he looked like E.T - and it stayed with me. At the end when they show up it made more sense. Just an observation.
-
Granted, this is a somewhat cynical, heretical take on things, but are humans really anything more than just really complicated robots? So for all of those people (like Ebert) who say that they see David as nothing more than a toy, if a robot can emulate a person's emotions perfectly, including love and hate, what really makes that robot any different from a person? Sure, he's made out of some slighly different materials, but other than that he is almost exactly the same.
-
Harry's reviews are way too damn long.
-
Well, well, well.
How interesting to read that some folks desired an ending to the film A.I. that left a tortured entity/memory-bank in the shape of a boy to be trapped under ice forever preserved to contain a record of hopeless want and misery!?
I perceived the ending of A.I as a sort of excorcism by the future mechas to relieve David of his 2000 year old memories because they were too painful to watch and to ignore! Why should a robot prototype be left to rust like that? How about trying to look at the ending to A.I. through the eyes of a robot? Okay, You're a highly evolved creation who has just uncovered an ancient ancestor, then you read it's mind... and it's a nightmare!
You have the compassion and capability to "give him what he wants", fullfilling his function as a robot, so you do it, and it's a happy ending goddamnit!
I believe in ghosts. Maybe that's my problem and it's slanted my perception of the ending to A.I., I dunno... But let me ask you this- If it was a human boy trapped under the ice, and his tortured soul remained on Earth as a lost and confused spirit that continued it's damned existence haunting the Coney Island Fairy statue with his quest for the unconditional love of a mother, would that be a good ending? ...maybe so, but still a pretty corny one.
As we all know, Spirit Mediums try to end or heal the suffering of human spirits trapped in their own seemingly endless hopeless hells, so why wouldn't a robot do the same for another robot? Even if only to make themselves "feel" better as a result?
The ending was necessary.
A.I. still left questions unanswered, and fullfilled it's Sci-Fi duty by leaving us with the ultimate significant question, "What if ?" Since the "what if" is made out to be more likely and best suited for robot survival, not human, maybe that is what's leaving people so cold?
Just a thought...
-
Jul 05, 2001 11:04:06 PM CDT
logical reason for love? again, ms. superbad, you miss the point
by antoniusbloc
Mrs. SB or should I say BS.By my definition children LEARN to love, they grow to love. So the important question is, does David have the capacity to learn, so his love grows beyond selfish desire and posessiveness to empathy and self sacrifice? That is my point, not whether his emotions were true, but that the issue is not explored in the film! Instead it's the other ridiculous question i won't get into again. And not all children possess a degree of jealosy displayed by David, especially at the age David at least looks. Of course they can get jealous when a sibling is being shown more affection, but when your mother is crying over your sibling in a coma you don't stare at her like a dog selfishly waiting to be shown affection. That's all David really sought was affection, not love. His actions reflect need and desire, obsessive, single minded emotion, but not love. Therefore, how is the audience supposed to care about him, his relationships, his goals? David MIGHT have been showing true emotion, regardless of what my idealized definiton of love is, but the emotions reflected by his action were not relections of love by any definition. Despite his actions, the film wants us to simply accept he is "programmed to love", not programmed to LEARN to love, but simply "to love" as if they had a floppy disk with the file "love" containing "love" data, and transferred the data into his brain. What was the programmers definition of love? When something has to be programmed, it can only reflect the data put into it. Being programmed also means there is a programmer. Humans are not programmed to love.Survival is not the "logical reason" for the subjective feeling of love, is that how you would explain Romeo and Juliette's love? SuperSad, you said, "We are programmed to love because it usually creates stable environments to live in, which has given us better chances for survival as a society". Programmed by who? You sound like a materialist, so i know you don't mean God. If you believe in God, then i would argue he didn't program us, but gave us the capacity and free will to love. If your talking about society, then your talking more about indoctrination or brainwashing, like what Castro is doing to Elian. As i stated earlier, if you have to be programmed to love it's not love. If you are somehow being brainwashed to love, it's not love. If it's not your choice to love, not your own free will, then your just doing what your told, going through the motions, acting, carrying out the data in the file. then Mr.UltraNegative you ask "Do you think there is any logical reason for love, other than that? " A logical reason for love? Can you say contradiction? So which is it you want David's character to display, "true emotion" as you put it, or programmed data or brainwashing so we can all just get along.
Again, my point is , the film failed because it didn't even attempt to explore the question of true emotion. We were simply to accept it as a premise for a less interesting, sentimental drama.
Ok Spen(you were my favorite character on Voltron) back to you. So which is it, he sleeps or dies? Is it an illusion created by supermecha's or did it really happen? At the end of Tim Burton's Edward Scissorhands, i cared about poor Ed, and had empathy for him througout the film. Why didn't i nit pick and question his ability to feel emotion, or why scissors were used as a replacement for hands by his creator? Because Edward was created by cookie cutters! His creator was Vincent Price! The story didn't take place in some Blade Runner type future world, but in a weird and wacky fantasy like suburb, that was right next to Vincent Price's castle!And at the end, Scissorhands creates an ice sculpture of his love, causing snow to fall (Burton should stick to his own imaginative creations and stop doing unnecesary remakes). Early in this film, a fantasy like fairy tale is established. This is never established in AI. For something magical to suddenly happen at the end is bad storytelling, and i don't think was the intention. -
Jul 05, 2001 11:06:00 PM CDT
logical reason for love? again, ms. superbad, you miss the point
by antoniusbloc
Mrs. SB or should I say BS.By my definition children LEARN to love, they grow to love. So the important question is, does David have the capacity to learn, so his love grows beyond selfish desire and posessiveness to empathy and self sacrifice? That is my point, not whether his emotions were true, but that the issue is not explored in the film! Instead it's the other ridiculous question i won't get into again. And not all children possess a degree of jealosy displayed by David, especially at the age David at least looks. Of course they can get jealous when a sibling is being shown more affection, but when your mother is crying over your sibling in a coma you don't stare at her like a dog selfishly waiting to be shown affection. That's all David really sought was affection, not love. His actions reflect need and desire, obsessive, single minded emotion, but not love. Therefore, how is the audience supposed to care about him, his relationships, his goals? David MIGHT have been showing true emotion, regardless of what my idealized definiton of love is, but the emotions reflected by his action were not relections of love by any definition. Despite his actions, the film wants us to simply accept he is "programmed to love", not programmed to LEARN to love, but simply "to love" as if they had a floppy disk with the file "love" containing "love" data, and transferred the data into his brain. What was the programmers definition of love? When something has to be programmed, it can only reflect the data put into it. Being programmed also means there is a programmer. Humans are not programmed to love.Survival is not the "logical reason" for the subjective feeling of love, is that how you would explain Romeo and Juliette's love? SuperSad, you said, "We are programmed to love because it usually creates stable environments to live in, which has given us better chances for survival as a society". Programmed by who? You sound like a materialist, so i know you don't mean God. If you believe in God, then i would argue he didn't program us, but gave us the capacity and free will to love. If your talking about society, then your talking more about indoctrination or brainwashing, like what Castro is doing to Elian. As i stated earlier, if you have to be programmed to love it's not love. If you are somehow being brainwashed to love, it's not love. If it's not your choice to love, not your own free will, then your just doing what your told, going through the motions, acting, carrying out the data in the file. then Mr.UltraNegative you ask "Do you think there is any logical reason for love, other than that? " A logical reason for love? Can you say contradiction? So which is it you want David's character to display, "true emotion" as you put it, or programmed data or brainwashing so we can all just get along.
Again, my point is , the film failed because it didn't even attempt to explore the question of true emotion. We were simply to accept it as a premise for a less interesting, sentimental drama.
Ok Spen(you were my favorite character on Voltron) back to you. So which is it, he sleeps or dies? Is it an illusion created by supermecha's or did it really happen? At the end of Tim Burton's Edward Scissorhands, i cared about poor Ed, and had empathy for him througout the film. Why didn't i nit pick and question his ability to feel emotion, or why scissors were used as a replacement for hands by his creator? Because Edward was created by cookie cutters! His creator was Vincent Price! The story didn't take place in some Blade Runner type future world, but in a weird and wacky fantasy like suburb, that was right next to Vincent Price's castle!And at the end, Scissorhands creates an ice sculpture of his love, causing snow to fall (Burton should stick to his own imaginative creations and stop doing unnecesary remakes). Early in this film, a fantasy like fairy tale is established. This is never established in AI. For something magical to suddenly happen at the end is bad storytelling, and i don't think was the intention. -
Jul 05, 2001 11:33:15 PM CDT
Wow Harry, Moriarty and El cosmo are totaly wrong on this one
by tallscott
Man how times have changed..a few years ago these guys would have championed this movie but instead they poo-poo all over it..Hmmm I guess they are too brianwashed on mindless drivel like the Matrix ( Yes I said it)..I cannot begin to desribe how shocked I am that this site gave A.I. a bad review..For years they have been crying and moaning how movies need to be better like 2001 and how movies dont make you think anymore..Well one comes out and they shat all over it.. Nice sellout to corprate machine boys..I hope your happy..Is 2001 perfect? no. Is citizen Kane perfect? no. what makes them great is the BALLS the creators had to make you think and try to create something totaly unique.and you guys act like spielberg is galliao trying to tell you flat earthers that the world is round. Nice. A.I. is something of a dinasour to you people when movies mattered not the gitz and sheen of a hollywood committe made film that is made today. I dont want my movies perfect but I want them to be good and to prod the grey matter in my head. Something that happens when hell freezes over in films today. well I guess the line is "I dont go to movies to think".. and im sure the fat cats of the studios love this so they can get more of your money so they can turn out driviel for you to eat like a mcdonalds big mac...grrr..I digress sorry about that rant and another thing HAPPY ENDING??? HAPPY ENDING??? ARE YOU PEOPLE ON CRACK??? It was tragic! oh boy he only gets the love of his mother for a day! yee hawww.I walked out of the theater with a big grin on my face..NOT! Im sure if they left david under the farris wheel you would have bitched about that to no end you hypocrats! Look I dont care if you hate the movie but hate it for the right reasons not beacuse of the ending but beacuse you dont like to think when you go to the movies admit it please! Ex-fanboy out!
-
Jul 06, 2001 12:18:04 AM CDT
its sad to hear that so many have such low expectations from spi
by shiva
Why is it that almost no one has mentioned that this movie seems to be an exact portrait of our time,where cynicism rules,faith(not to be confused with god or religion)is ridiculed because its not cool and artists like spielberg are ridiculed for being less than perfect.When has a movie been perfect?Can you recognize perfection if you see it?No,none of us could,because each of us has blinkers attached(ideological or otherwise)and right now almost everyone seems to belive that if a movie isnt a ride of some sort,if it doesnt have an oh-so-cool knowing veneer then its not a film.Thats sad because it speaks more about us and the depths we have sunk to.As people who really love the cinema we should have been the ones who cheered for this film,a genuinely noble effort which after a long time has taken science fiction out of the sfx ghetto it has been stuck in.However people seem to be attacking its creator for being,a)too rich,b)unhip,c)not having a screenplay that pushes all our buttons,d)not being as cynical as God....OOPS sorry KUBRICK.Instead of discussing the movie this whole affair has been tuned into a Kubrick v/s Speilberg thing.Now nobody wants to go with a manipulative,naive,sentimental,rich guy they seem to be saying;Lets go with the Cynic because he decided to make ART.It has been speilbergs fate to be branded as a commercial film maker since the time he started out.People seem to grudge him his sucess,because THEY BELIEVE great film makers can never be sucessful.It has never occured to these naysayers that Speilberg could be that exception,that unique kind of film maker who makes money making movies but always keeps his artistic integrity,expressing his passion for basic human emotions.As a case against the need to be hip look no further than David Finchers Fight Club.Fincher,whose The Game is one of the great unheralded movies of the last decade,has been anointed as the next Kubrick because he made Fight Club a cynical,manipulative movie of the worst kind.While the so called hipsters ignored the various criticisms of modern day capitalism that Fincher put forward in The Game and to a lesser extent in Seven and Alien3,the immediately latched on to the shallow self indulgent whinining of Fight Club.Tragic,because Fincher seems to be a profoundly intelligent and perceptive film maker who like Speilberg understands that he lives in cynical times.He also understands that blatant in-your-face nihilism rules,that any show of humanism can lead to abject ridicule.Speilberg bravely refuses to toe that cynical line because he has never tried to present a view of the world which is not his own.Not when they lauded Scorsese,Lucas or Coppola and attacked him for being the escapist in that group.Not when they attacked him for bringing sfx into cinema and thereby ruining their idea of a 'pure'art form,when it was'nt Speilberg but his misguided pupils who misused sfx and brought cinema to the sorry state it is in right now.The latest blow comes from would be screenplay writers on the net who worship the written word but fail to recognize cinema as a visual form which is not dependant on the written word.Good cinema is'nt about spouting cool dialogue,its about reaching out to the audience using the power of the image.The reaction from critics shows their resentment towards speilberg for not making a junk food kind of movie.We have finally reached the nadir of aesthetic appreciation because we now demand mediocrity nay,we crave it.
-
Jul 06, 2001 12:22:11 AM CDT
its sad to hear that so many have such low expectations from spi
by shiva
Why is it that almost no one has mentioned that this movie seems to be an exact portrait of our time,where cynicism rules,faith(not to be confused with god or religion)is ridiculed because its not cool and artists like spielberg are ridiculed for being less than perfect.When has a movie been perfect?Can you recognize perfection if you see it?No,none of us could,because each of us has blinkers attached(ideological or otherwise)and right now almost everyone seems to belive that if a movie isnt a ride of some sort,if it doesnt have an oh-so-cool knowing veneer then its not a film.Thats sad because it speaks more about us and the depths we have sunk to.As people who really love the cinema we should have been the ones who cheered for this film,a genuinely noble effort which after a long time has taken science fiction out of the sfx ghetto it has been stuck in.However people seem to be attacking its creator for being,a)too rich,b)unhip,c)not having a screenplay that pushes all our buttons,d)not being as cynical as God....OOPS sorry KUBRICK.Instead of discussing the movie this whole affair has been tuned into a Kubrick v/s Speilberg thing.Now nobody wants to go with a manipulative,naive,sentimental,rich guy they seem to be saying;Lets go with the Cynic because he decided to make ART.It has been speilbergs fate to be branded as a commercial film maker since the time he started out.People seem to grudge him his sucess,because THEY BELIEVE great film makers can never be sucessful.It has never occured to these naysayers that Speilberg could be that exception,that unique kind of film maker who makes money making movies but always keeps his artistic integrity,expressing his passion for basic human emotions.As a case against the need to be hip look no further than David Finchers Fight Club.Fincher,whose The Game is one of the great unheralded movies of the last decade,has been anointed as the next Kubrick because he made Fight Club a cynical,manipulative movie of the worst kind.While the so called hipsters ignored the various criticisms of modern day capitalism that Fincher put forward in The Game and to a lesser extent in Seven and Alien3,the immediately latched on to the shallow self indulgent whinining of Fight Club.Tragic,because Fincher seems to be a profoundly intelligent and perceptive film maker who like Speilberg understands that he lives in cynical times.He also understands that blatant in-your-face nihilism rules,that any show of humanism can lead to abject ridicule.Speilberg bravely refuses to toe that cynical line because he has never tried to present a view of the world which is not his own.Not when they lauded Scorsese,Lucas or Coppola and attacked him for being the escapist in that group.Not when they attacked him for bringing sfx into cinema and thereby ruining their idea of a 'pure'art form,when it was'nt Speilberg but his misguided pupils who misused sfx and brought cinema to the sorry state it is in right now.The latest blow comes from would be screenplay writers on the net who worship the written word but fail to recognize cinema as a visual form which is not dependant on the written word.Good cinema is'nt about spouting cool dialogue,its about reaching out to the audience using the power of the image.The reaction from critics shows their resentment towards speilberg for not making a junk food kind of movie.We have finally reached the nadir of aesthetic appreciation because we now demand mediocrity nay,we crave it.
-
Jul 06, 2001 12:52:06 AM CDT
***HARRY, EVERYONE, PLEASE READ!****ENDING REVELATIONS! SPIELBER
by harmonica
This is long, I know, I wrote it. Hopefully, though, it will be rewarding to read and may be a catalyst for further dialogue on the subject.
Spoilers -
Jul 06, 2001 1:39:22 AM CDT
WHY A.I. IS GREAT AND THE RIGHT WING PROPAGANDA AGIANST THIS FIL
by tallscott
Sorry for the caps...pretty eye catching eh? Ok here is what my post boils down to
1) Why A.I. is a great film. Man so many people argueing and talking about this movie..THIS IS GREAT! There has never been so much debate and diessecting of a film in a long long time..If you hate it..Fine its cool but your talking about it. For me i loved it..I hate movies that spoon feed you everything and not let you think for yourself. There is so much theories and people comming up with thier own conclusions. I think thats wonderful. More movies need to be like this. Despite what brian dead Moriarty and el cosmo think.oops sorry. But thats part of the beauty of it. Good old fashion non violent debate is a wonderful thing and we need more of it in our world. Its good to have a art form that people are talking about good and bad..besides the " It sucks" or " it rocks" comments that you hear all the frigging time. Keep it up!
2) The Right Wing Consperacy Against This Film
Ok I know this is another subject but im lazy and I did not want to re-post but ive been reading alot of right wingish publications and right leaning newspapers ( druge report for one) trying to tear this film a new one and I think I know why..The GLOBAL WARMING aspect of this fim. New york underwater ect. Man they must hate that beacuse according to our new administation global warming is not a threat and alot of the right press seems to be on the bandwagon about that. Now here is Mr. Spielberg comming out with a movie with Leftish enviormental prophecys about the seas taking over most of out ladmass beacuse of the hot temps caused by pollution melting the icecaps. Now they want to trash this movie so no one will take global warming as a threat...Hopefully.
now lets talk about that shall we?:) -
Jul 06, 2001 1:43:19 AM CDT
***HARRY, EVERYONE, PLEASE READ!****ENDING REVELATIONS! SPIELBER
by harmonica
Sorry if you read the other posting of this. It gave me a headache just looking at it. This one should be a lot nicer on the eyes.
This is long, I know, I wrote it. Hopefully, though, it will be rewarding to read and may be a catalyst for further dialogue on the subject.
Spoilers -
I've only read a handful of the first talkbacks, but I'm glad some people are embracing the ending. I kind of compare some of the disappointment to this film with the disappointment with Castaway. Not everything can be resolved, and we, as an audience, must come to our own conclusions. Frankly, A.I. is the best film I've seen all year. It is full of wonderful ideas, and it is quite an ambiguous film for such a big named director. Whether you liked this film or not, it forced you to pay attention. It is philisophical, and it is multi-layered, unlike most of the big-budgeted shit and the strung out independent crap that is out there right now. It is a journey film where the main character is immersed in an entire, new society, and he is forced to adapt. He may be just a robot, or articificial intelligence, but what we don't understand now, we may not understand in the future. History often repeats itself. I thank Steven Spielberg, Stanley Kubrick, and everybody else that had the balls to make this film, and make people think for once. It is truly an inspiration, and I am thankful I got to view this film in any form. OUT!!!!
-
As a movie I feel ultimately failed (or one that I will not seek to view repeatedly)...I like the fact that it has generated so much feedback...including an in-depth discussion between my wife and myself. That in itself is an accomplishment...since we normally do not talk to each other at all!
-
Just wanted to chime in again and say this has been the best Talkback I think I've ever participated in on AICN. First of all, while the lamerz still have to make their existence known, they are few and far between in this Talkback. There's a lot of great discussion going on, and the end result of reading all of this is that I'm starting to have an appreciation for A.I. that I didn't have when I left the theater. Finally, I just want to add that I agree with Redwood--what is it that you folks have against Hook? I'm proud to say I love that movie. Oh well, different strokes for...well, you know. McFly<--
-
Jul 06, 2001 6:02:44 AM CDT
Can you think of any other films in which the audience is encour
by m2298
THE BRAVE LITTLE TOASTER?
-
Did anyone find it strange that David's clothes were in such good condition after 2,000 years?
-
AI is brilliant. Brilliant not in perfection or perhaps even in execution.
But in awareness.
David is a boy, not a human boy, but a boy nonetheless. David loves, not a human or flawed love, but a perfect love.
The movie is ultimately disturbing because it's we humans who bring about our downfall. It's we humans who are immoral. It's we humans who develop and market a boy who can love for eternity who only wants for his mother to love him. We humans can not give our creation his solace. It takes an evolutionary step forward to bring David out of his misery, and give him peace.
I think a neater (ie. cleaner) ending would have been for David to run down and die pleading with the blue fairy. Though you could argue, that, that in fact did happen. Until the Sentients revived him, that is. But as it is, it a happy ending for David.
His mother does finally love him; whether the Sentients programmed Mom to say it, or if it actually was genuine. It was kind of them. The Sentients showed far more kindness to David than humans ever did.
This movie is also ultimately disturbing if you believe in God. Does David have a soul? I believe that he does. And I find it ulimately cruel to have him hope and plead for 2000 years. It would be just as cruel if it was a human child pining away the last moments of his life.
-
I am very angry at you Harry. If you were planning to discuss the ending. THAT IS FINE. But you did NOT mention that you were going to SPOIL it. You forgot to warn us!!!!! I have NOT seen the film yet. If I saw the word "spoilers" then I would have waited until I saw the film before reading your oppinions. Read Ebert's webpage. He does not spoil anything. You owe us an appology for forgetting to warn us that you had spoilers in it. I am mad at you.
-
I am very angry at you Harry. If you were planning to discuss the ending. THAT IS FINE. But you did NOT mention that you were going to SPOIL it. You forgot to warn us!!!!! I have NOT seen the film yet. If I saw the word "spoilers" then I would have waited until I saw the film before reading your oppinions. Read Ebert's webpage. He does not spoil anything. You owe us an appology for forgetting to warn us that you had spoilers in it. I am mad at you.
-
We are programmed to love our own family the same way we are programmed to breath and crave food. Love creates a stable environment for children to grow up in, and it holds our society together. Children will love their parent even when they are beaten within an inch of their lives and chained up in a closet for two weeks. You honestly believe that abused children grow to love their parents? Most people will never experience the Romeo and Juliet type love you're going off about, and the movie explains IN THE FIRST GODDAMN SCENE that we are talking about a child's love which is a completely different type of love. They made him with a capacity to experience love, not just mimic the emotions to satisfy parents. If you can't accept a simple premise like this it's no wonder you didn't like the movie. And he was only with them for what, 2-3 days? How many children do you know mature emotionally within a week?
-
to know love than it is to know other emotions? AntoniusBloc writes 'When he stares at his mother crying for her real son, David is jealous. That's not love.' Is hate such a bad thing? Some people seem to like the movie; others seem to hate it. Both cases are rewarded with the convenience of easy assessment should they run into it again. Before we began to probe the brain, we talked about our emotions. How did a person tell if another was happy or not happy? I think it could only use its given senses to look for clues such as smiling and hugging. If a person thought that another person tried to use all its ingenuity to benefit a third person always, then the observer might have thought it loved the third person. Wouldn't it be nice if we could answer questions about love and other emotions; then we could hold an emotion toward David. But these age-old questions will continue to be asked. I think the appearance of the creatures at the end are forshadowed visually at least twice during the movie. David's silhouette, when it appears for the first time, looks tall and thin like one of them. Also when David removes its face from the mask, he sees the Cybertronics logo which also bears a resemblance. I apologize if these remarks have been made already.
-
I thought it was brilliant, and I'm trying to get to see it again ASAP. I thought the ending was, the kid finally deserved a happy ending, and if you think about it, the ending was kinda perverse AND happy at the same time.
-
Why is it you think that a robot child programmed to learn to love would express it in the way you decide he should? Did you watch the scenes with Monica's real son in them? He sent David in to cut mommy's hair with the sissors. Was that done out of love? It's called jealousy. Anyone knows that's one of the by-products when there is competition for love and attention. If David took anything away from observing the son, it certainly wouldn't have taught him to love in the way you're talking about. I'm not saying jealousy means love, it doesn't. But it's a real emotion. Robots would not feel jealousy. David wouldn't have smashed the other David robot if he didn't feel threatened that it might compete with him for attention and love, be it from mommy or the doctor. If I misunderstood your point I apologize, there's 5000 different views in these talkbacks...
And to the jackass that said something about this only being about "selfishness", you have the intelligence of a round, smooth stone. Anyone who thinks there isn't an aspect of selfishness in love is fooling themselves. Of course it's about selfishness you ass. Do you hear Harry's painful memories of wanting his mother back the way he remembered her? You think selfishness is a bad thing? I'm glad to see that reviews tend to be more positive after people have had a few days to let the film sink in a bit. I mean if you hated it, fine. Shiva has a nice post about it, unfortunately it's posted about 6 times here. What's with the screw-up's & wrong order in the talkback all the time? -
jesus CHRIST.
my opinion is, this film was written halfASSED, and then all the "details" that went into it were Obvious and mediocre. i don't think any serious thought or committment went into this film (never minding the "Behind The Scenes" information, just because you spend weeks and months planning something doesn't make it NOT trite), and it shows.
i left feeling nothing but regret for wasting my time with it. the ONLY thing i enjoyed about it was haley jo osmet... he did a really good job, and brough a lot of character to an otherwise simultaneously OVERDONE and SIMPLE story.
i hope there are a lot of people out there that really enjoy this movie... because i sure as fuck don't, and i hate wasting film.
anyway... thanks for listening to me rant/rave about this...
argh
i just saw Scary Movie 2 yesterday... i've been STEEPING myself in crap lately... i'm going to go watch something good and get my head straight again. -
Jul 06, 2001 9:44:52 AM CDT
IT WAS INCREDIBLY CARELESS OF YOU NOT TO GIVE A SPOILER WARNING
by fernwick_
I was very interested to see what the head geek felt about the movie and was reading in a frenzy prepared to stop at his usual spoiler warning when I realized this "review" was giving away HUGE portions of the movie!
Harry remember people like to read reviews sometimes BEFORE they watch the movie and dont want to have the whole ENDING GIVIN AWAY!!!!
-
Jul 06, 2001 9:51:01 AM CDT
Harry is 29 years old. He is 5'11" tall. He weighs 368 pounds. H
by regis travolta
Harry can be imprinted to love you too, even if you're the world's most successful director. But beware! Once Harry is imprinted to love you, he will love you very very long time and will never let you go! So beware the love of mecha Knowless! If you abandon him he will track you down with the help of Robo-Gigolo and make you apologize and then 2000 years later he'll be frozen in ice and you'll be long gone.
-
I loved the ending. Personally I'm tired of the now-standard nihilistic, post modern yearning for endings where everything goes wrong and all is hopeless (like the way Kafka ended "Metamorphosis"), or disdain for any sort of resolution to a story that has elements of hope. Having a problem with a dulcet ending is just a symptom of being too cynical. And, like Roberson Davies wrote, "To be cynical is not the same as avoiding illusion, for cynicism is just another kind of illusion. All formulas for meeting life - even many philosophies - are illusion. Cynicism is a trashy illusion." I don't think the film could have had a better ending. Even Asimov would've liked it, I bet.
-
Go to google.com ... type in pagan sun god... you will notice it lists the catholic church.
god is not in this movie... "science is Magic" but science isn't magic. it can't save anyone. The first prostetic heart was implanted but that person will still die someday. It makes us human. Steve wasn't trying to say he'd be dreaming. He said death was a part of being human. As much as I don't like closure. The ending was fine...its his movie he can do what he wanted with it. I would have liked it to end him entombed in the ice. A "Johnny Gots his gun" (Dear lord please kill james hetfield, please kill james...please...)('state' reference for those that don't remember good television)ending with hope. Even though it was neet seeing idea of the earth being a frozen tundra. we being a blip in the history of time. a wierd alone feeling of serenity. Sort of like if you sit their insanely bored and you accidently put your self out of all existence of this universe- The cold feeling of complete seperateness from god , thinking the ground underneath your feet could fall from you, adrenaline pumps through you fear. and it dawns upon you that as much as your try you never recreate that feeling again.
Love... Ever since adam ate from the tree of knowledge of what is good or bad. Humans have thought they have a right... a superiority to love or to hate.
I read a bumper sticker the other day that said ,"Jesus loves you - Everybody else thinks your an asshole"
Jesus AND (not 'is') God (did I mention holy ghost?no...) do love people but they don't love all people like Jesus would die for you again...
When aaron sinned - (Moses's spokesman before pharoah and in the wilderness after the exodus) he was put to death. Even after years of wonderful service to God.
I would use the true name of God but most flesh fest people associate it with a religion that requires self discipline and and on going love for god.
When I talk I get know where cause I bounce from point to point.
Spielberg is an educated Jewish man (I've met in person) with a background in religion. We don't
know his true feelings on god , this world, its end. We don't know if he cares about directing anymore.
The Exit music for a film in every movie. The cute little boys. The happy death of the star. The oscar.
I don't want to say hes sold out. But you got to reach a point where your just f***** around.
I mean Johnny Greenwood could mic up someones bare ass and distort it, add echo and reverb over a looping weather broadcast and they'd have another cd. But I would still buy it.
It could be they screwed up... but again these people aren't "Everclear"... They know how to come up with new stuff...
-
Saw it last night, and even after reading all the various crap, I thought this was a great movie. The Mom does love David. David ate to compete with his brother for moms love. That family was chosen because the father was an employee whose family best fit the criteria. The ending was happy, for David. A young boy wanting his mommy's love is not selfish, it is a young boy wanting his mommy's love - should he be crying out for an end to world hunger, you wankers? They were super-mecha's at the end (why else speak so highly of humans?) The super-mechas were not emotionless - why then did they solely wish to make David happy? Is that not compassion? The time-space continuum explanation was incorrect only if you can call this a documentary, and then prove it's true nature, you wankers. Having seen the movie, I now realize the majority here are techno-weenie, neo/captain kirk wannabies with star trek manuals on their bookshelves. You wouldn't know a good movie if it came up and bit you in the ass!
-
Jul 06, 2001 10:35:27 AM CDT
Don't mind these people, Harry, I loved that little addition tha
by themightyra
A.I. argueably MUST be seen. It isn't another summer action movie that you can pass up. Sure A.I. had it's flaws, but it's an important story to see. There are morals here that people must learn. And if not watch it because of..whatever, definately watch it because of it's uniqueness. A.I. will stick in your mind, because it was so different and unique, whether it sucked or not. Definately, I felt that Spielberg was right when he wanted to make Kubrick's story into a movie. He said, "Because I felt it needed to be told." And I feel it did need to be told. Indeed.
-
Jul 06, 2001 10:37:43 AM CDT
Don't mind these people, Harry, I loved that little addition tha
by themightyra
A.I. argueably MUST be seen. It isn't another summer action movie that you can pass up. Sure A.I. had it's flaws, but it's an important story to see. There are morals here that people must learn. And if not watch it because of..whatever, definately watch it because of it's uniqueness. A.I. will stick in your mind, because it was so different and unique, whether it sucked or not. Definately, I felt that Spielberg was right when he wanted to make Kubrick's story into a movie. He said, "Because I felt it needed to be told." And I feel it did need to be told. Indeed.
-
for humans to exhibit variety and forgetfulness than it is to exhibit predictability and memory without fail. In the movie Professor Hobby talks about mimicking the behavior of neurons in making David. It seems we function through the functions of neurons. If one successfully builds a Mecha by mimicking the essential features of neurons, then is it not possible that it is actually easier for a Mecha to behave flexibly than it is to behave like a sequential computer program in C++? So maybe these Mechas can develop human intelligence. Because of the way they are made, it is difficult to confine their behavior to a predictable set, although apparently it is possible to make them favor their chosen profession. While it can step outside its domain and contemplate philosophy, Gigolo Joe prefers to be a gigolo. Its statement does not seem so farfetched: it is possible that humans without the obvious foresight can make machines "too smart, too quick, and too many." But this is just a story. It probably takes a long time to make such machines, and meanwhile we can use it to think about the consequences of our actions.
-
Haary's review was right on, so I won't add anything other than: "those damn microphones!". Twice in the movie we see the movie set's equipment intruding on the screen. The first occurs in the parents' bedroom while they are arguing about David. The blasted thing hovers above the actors and follows them as they move to the left of the screen. The second occurs while David is sitting outside the building, prior to dropping into the water. For a movie with so many special effects: WOULD IT HAVE KILLED THE DIRECTOR TO HAVE THE MICROPHONES REMOVED???!!! That's my piece.
-
Jul 06, 2001 12:09:00 PM CDT
Sorry for the revelation proclamation. I just saw the movie and
by harmonica
All I was doing was positing the question of "is the search for love of a child/adult for it's mom/creator a selfish or selfless act?" It's both, I suppose. And that's why the ending is confusing. You want it to take a stand one way or the other on the issue that it is dealing with, but it doesn't know how to. Was Harry's search for his mother's love selfish. Sure. Was it selfless for a child to assume that it should be loved. Sure. I suppose that technically we don't need the love of our mums to survive. But it sure is nice to have and it, by most accounts, should be there from the start. Also, god as creator as mother/cybergenics is in this movie, right there. And by David searching for the blue fairy to make him whole, he is in essence searching for a god that will make him whole. And I mentioned Christ only as a religious figure metaphor for god. Could the reborn Monica have been the second coming?
-
Could Monica have been the first coming? And her being reborn was her resurrection and sign to David that she was his salvation. Could Monica have been the Siddhartha, etc., etc. to David? And if anyone thinks this movie is slow or ponderous or too simple and believes that these are negative things, should check out some of the great directors of film like Bergman, Eisenstein, Welles, Italian Neo-Realism, Lang, Ford, Leone, Godard, Truffaut, Vertov...film's history is wrought with wonderful meandering films. And Spielberg has finally solidified his name in that list.
-
What questin logically follows, is it possible to simply program "love" into a robotic child, regardless of it being a child's love or true or real love?The question is asked in the opening scene,and quickly dismissed with a short answer about neurons. The film never again attempts to explain or explore this fascinating question. What question follows from the question of HOW you progrm love? Logically, the question would be what is love? What does it consist of to be able to program it into an artificial brain? How do we know the robot is feeling it, and not going through the motions. Another fascinating question never explored in the film.My point therefore, (please pay attention) The question that drives the action of the film, whether humans can love a robotic toy ASSUMED to have love(why i must accept his i don't know). This shows the goal of the film, which is to make us care for David and his journey to make uncaring humans love him. Just watch the film. What drives the action? What do we actually see for the majority of the film? Robots being abused or chased by humans, and David crying about it. We see overdramatic sentimentality that reminds me of a daytime soap opera. My point is not to say that i am right about the definition of love(which i think i am, by the way)...the point is that the movie spends no time on this interesting question and others it should have explored. i'm not talking about ideas now, i mean what we see in the majority of the film. i honestly don't think most people watching cared about David, because we didn't care about his relationship with his mother or anyone else in the film. The attempts to manipulate the audience to care for David didn't work for most people. I guess those praising it are either in denial or easily manipulated, or as they like to put it, programmed. (By the way superbad, we are not programmed to love or feel. If so, its not true love or feeling. it's just acting or being ordered to act. again, being programmed implies a programmer. who is your programmer?)
-
Plot hole: The real laugh in film was the professor coming in and seeing David destroy his double, then assuming he'd be okay alone when he gathered the group to check him out. How could he not have thought of locking the door to the Mecha-processing/ packaging room after what he had just seen? If we're supposed to believe that, then try to imagine what a big idiot he would have felt like after realizing that David jumped off the building? Why couldn't they send another amphibacopter down there to get him?
-
Bergman's brilliant films make my point. Bergman understood what questions to raise in his films, but more importantly, he translated the issues raised by his questions onto the screen. The question just didn't come out of the subject matter. In Bergman's films, the question is always being raised on screen, we are thinking about it and feeling the weight of the possibility of its answers as we watch. The images, dialogue, action, bring out that feeling THROUGHOUT the film, not 3 days later after reading talkbacks on a geek site. Bergman was a true genius.
-
I usually make a point of staying away from talkbackers because of the insipid, nitpicking, self-congratulatory smart-ass nature of many of the posts. You know, "Man, I would done the movie this way and it would have rocked!" Please.
I just couldn't stay away from this one. The divide over the merits of A.I. has taught me one thing, we are truly doomed. Some of you knuckleheads even had the balls to tell people not to go see this movie, after stating that it was visually arresting, had an unbelievable premise and a remarkable performance by the lead? That is beyong anti-intellect.
Now that the dust has settles and more reasonable post from talkbackers with more eloquence and intellect have made the case for the films classic status, everyone is suddenly jumping on the bandwagon. Backpedalling and saying stuff like, "Oh well, maybe I need to see it a second time."
First of all, the film rocked. If you the hairs on the back of your neck didn't stand up, if your sensibilities were not twisted by the scathing moral connundrum, if you thought that those were 'aliens' at the end of the film then you are one of THOSE people. You know the ones; the ones that quickening the demise of the human species because they have lost the ability to grasp ambiguity, paradox and wonder.
Tell you what, skip seeing it a seeing time cause it probably won't do you any good. Go see the fast and the furious again with Dweeble the film killer and obsess over Vin Diesel's pipes.
-
Jul 06, 2001 1:06:59 PM CDT
If I could sound caution, and let slip my views and more...
by worldwidelie
One should not forget that Kubrick, too, had his problem ending movies.
For example a Clockwork Orange and Barry Lyndon seem to meander towards conclusions. As with 2001, these movies degenerate before our eyes (perhaps the point).
Likewise, Eyes Wide Shut and Full Metal Jacket seem to stop abruptly. again, perhaps the point.
Kubrick seemed to be drawn to material of sufficient complexity to be difficult to resolve. what spielberg seems to have done is overresolve. the other extreme.
i just feel one should not assume kubrick's denouement been any more popular than spielbergs. it might have been less explicit, and many would find this 'unsatisfying' (not in a negative sense) angle more satisfying. nonetheless, it might still have been derided in talkback. maybe for the opposite problems as spielberg. maybe for the same.
i don't think, also, there is anything inherently 'leftish' about global warming. it's a problem of the planet; therefore bipartisan, and will scar Baby Bush as much as Baby Nader. -
David is sadly, yet understandably, pushed aside as Monica's son makes an unexpected recovery and returns home. This is a grim section of the film to watch because I somehow feel an affinity for David at this point and know that his love is indeed genuine and unaffected. Do I detect a certain note of anguish in David's face as Monica's son is rolled into the home on a wheel chair? Perhaps. But that would be our humanistic impression of David
-
Jul 06, 2001 2:01:32 PM CDT
A.I REVIEW: part three of three (based on two viewings)
by fughetaboutit
The ending does not in any way betray the story. The highly evolved mechas of the story have long been exploring this legacy by the time we catch up to them in the film. They are obviously benevolent and pure in a certain quest for understanding of humanity.
The evolved -
They should give Teddy his own movie to star in. He can have a girlfriend and his own missile-equipped minicopter. The people of Earth can feel his wrath.
-
Hey, Harry. Just wanted to say that upon further review, after seeing AI myself, OH MY GOSH! I absolutely agree with both you and Moriarity on this one, 100%. Pretty amazing. But it seems like a universal opinion here. The movie is really, really good all the way to where he finds the blue fairy at the bottom of the ocean. I would go so far as to say brilliant. But, here, here, I'm not to bashful to say, I think that last 20 minutes of drivel is definately all Speilburg. No way would Kubrick let all that smarmy bullshit go on after the movie had in fact ended. Nothing against Speilburg, but he has gotten so so soft in his old age. I hate that he can't live his films out on screen separate from his own life and personal ambitions. In his case, I really do wish he'd let his characters live and breath a life of their own. To coin a phrase from Lynch, everything doesn't always have to come out peachy keen. And I really don't think that the movie ended on a much different note than if it had been left to end when it was supposed to. The only thing extra we gained was one last cheezy moment attained from the same bastards (I'm convenced of it) that gave us that Special Edition ending to Close Encounters. Yuch. Someone also brought up that the movie had to have originally been written this way because of Teddy getting the lock at the beginning of the movie. So they say it's a Kubrick move. Nah... One, They could've simply gone back and inserted the Teddy scene, two, the scene didn't really amount to anything anyway; just cause Teddy watches the hair drop doesn't mean he's saving it for alien DNA reproduction, and three, even if it was actually written in the script (which no one would beleive if they've seen any of Kubricks films) doesn't mean he would have actually filmed it or if he did, I certainly don't think it would have been filmed in the same way. I like Spielburg (maybe not of late so much) but he's no Kubrick. Let's face fact. Kubricks films are about perfection. Even in Eye's Wide Shut, there is so detail and devotion to the art of filmmaking, it's almost stiffling to the viewer. AI has some of that, and where it looses it I don't know, but it is definately not there at the end. Rant out. And rock on Harry, Moriarity.
-
Yeah, I've been waiting for this movie to come out for quite some time now. The worst though is when you go to see it with your girlfriend and she almost falls asleep...she's expecting some sort of action sequence or Julia Roberts to pop up for a cameo...It's like when you see a really good movie that really appeals to you you're just dying to share it with someone...SO I guess I'm asking does anyone else out there who's a big fan of Kubrick and 2001 and all his other great films agree with me in saying this was one of the best movies I've ever seen. Mark my words, much like 2001 set the precedent for all sorts of space and sci-fi flicks, including a techies favorite Star Wars, AI will set the precedent for all sorts of Artificial Intelligence movies that will emerge in the not too distant future...but this didn't just get the ball rolling, this was sincerely a great movie...and it's gonna take all you naysayers awhile to reach this conclusion...until the AFI does it's 1000 greatest movies of all time and AI's among the top 200 or so, you'll be like, yeah that was a good movie wasn't it...you don't know what to make of it now though. I'm in the Information technology field of study and if you think this movie is far fetched, just you wait! If you wanna know how close this movie is to some of the crazy shit people are doing as we speak in the fields of computation and evolutionary algorithms and quantam computing involved with AI, read "The Age of Spiritual Machines" from 1998...In the book, Ray Kurzweil predicts that man will create an intelligent being far more capable than humans within the next 100 years and that by doing so we inevitably have accomplished the same thing our own creator had accomplished. The movie AI shows alien-looking things at the end not to have some off-the-wall ending, but to show that perhaps the machine we build will continue to be refined until one day it accomplishes the task of recreating our own human life forms, resurrecting us from the dead...doing the things detailed in every major world religion. It completes the cycle started with 2001:A Space ODyessy, with a character, oddly enough also named Dave being reborn into a being far superior than his previous self. And AI has set the stage for the next step...Stanley has done it! He's completed the circle...he poured his friggin heart out into this thing, basically working on it his whole life! The movie trys to do as much as it can in 2 and a half hours...I think he employed the assistance of Spielberg to give the movie a human touch...if you look at 2001, the movie wasn't very human; it was cold, dark, erratic and mechanic...much like all of his movies. This was a very worthy effort to tackle issues that may not be mainstream for at least another decade or so! I'll tell you what this is, this was Stanley Kubrick not following popular culture but fucking melding it into what he wants because he holds that power over us...With 2001:A Space Odyssey, he basically told our movie-going culture how we should view space and computer technology, and we listened...because art and life are so intertwined I'm not sure we can tell the difference anymore. You just watch...a couple of years from now when you bring up artifical intelligence to someone who doesn't know much on the subject, they're gonna bring up their recollections of this movie...it just all depends on what they drew from the movie...did they like it? did they hate the fact that humans will eventually be overrun by AI beings? Or did they see a vision of things to come and now are excited at the possibilities of AI instead of frightened by it? Just take another look at this movie, look at the big picture, and see it for what it is...
-
I'm not the first person to say this, but apparently it needs to be posted a little further down. Before you start waxing intellectual about Kubrick,what he wrote, or what was intended for this script, go read the Kubrick FAQ on the cloudmakers site. The script that Ian Watson wrote for this movie (at Kubrick's request) specifically included the jump to the third act. There are a few differences, Watson's jump was only a thousand years instead of two millenia. Secondly, David brought Monica Bloody Mary's instead of coffee and there are a couple of other discrepancies as well. However, to say that Spielberg added a bunch of crap that Kubrick would never have allowed is an ignorant statement made by someone who hasn't done their homework. The FAQ goes on to explain that Kubrick worked with a second writer who didn't like the third act ending, but Kubrick fought vigorously about its importance to the film. Now, whether you like the ending or not is one person's opinion, but at least make it informed. Come right out and say that Kubrick fucked up and should never have written such a pansy ass ending. Oh but wait...bashing Kubrick isn't allowed. For the record, I don't think either one of them made a mistake. The ending, I believe, fits beautifully on to what, in time, will be considered a very thought provoking and conceptually brilliant film.
-
Fairy tales do not come true and reality does not always come to a "and they lived happily ever after" conclusion. I have reconsidered my initial impression of the ending after a week and a half of thought(This movie just does not wish release its mental grip on me). Though I still personally believe the issues conveyed in the opening scene would have more impact if discussed between Dr Hobby and David's future "parents", I no longer believe the ending to be superfluous. It took me a while to look below the surface of the "happy ending" to realize that it was as cold and dark as the rest of the movie.
-
It bothered me that a lot of people had a chance to be compassionate in the film... after all, the whole point is, we're supposed to feel sorry for Pinocchio, right? But aside from the howling mob of rednecks at the Flesh Fair, who took pity on the li'l bugger? Nobody.
It took ALIENS to show a little compassion, to take a little responsibility. That irked me considerably. Harry wanted to see the Spielberg who would have left the little booger at the bottom of the ocean... praying to a Blue Fairy that didn't exist. Me? I could have stood to have seen the Spielberg who believed that we aren't all selfish bastards, that there is SOMEONE out there who can show some compassion, take some responsibility... make a damn stand.
Instead, we have to wait two millenia for ET to show up and show us how it's done.
Bleh. -
I thought on AICN, all reviews do not spoil the endings or the movie itself? What gives?
-
I didn't think it was a main question whether or not you can program love, I thought they believed that a robot that could experience love would be the next step in the advancement of AI. The only people who are asking whether or not we can program love are the ones who refuse to accept the premise, which is ridiculous because it's a goddamn sci-fi fairy-tale. I don't believe that wooden puppets can become real boys, but that doens't mean I think pinnoccio is stupid story. AI was really about artificial conciousness. They believed that having a robot experiencing love would lead to a breakthrough, and the the rest of the movie showed us that they were right. Because of his programmed love, David went beyond his programming and became something more than what he was created to be. He created his own mythology and pursued it to it's logical conclusion given his maturity level. Do you think the mecha at the end showed love towards David? Obviously David was a first step towards what the mecha became. Do you think it's wrong to love a pet, even though they supposedly aren't capable of "true love" according to your definition? Does that make the movie "Old Yeller" emotionally maniplative and stupid because it's just a dog? (BTW Being programmed to love doesn't mean it's any less valid an emotion. Does being programmed to crave food make your hunger any less valid? Is it not "true hunger" because you have an instinct to eat? Love for our parents is as much an instinct as wanting to breath or becoming hungry. Newborns who aren't shown love die because of it. It's essential for the survival of our species. We have to be taught what "true love" is according to your definition, and most people will probably never experience it the way you describe it. Evolution programmed me, if you want to know what i think, and yes I think it's possible to grow beyond our genetic programming.)
-
When writing a great movie, it isn't enough to simply end it. To achieve greatness, you take the story to the end of the line. In RETURN OF THE JEDI, it wouldn't have been enough for Luke to kill Vader. They had to have an emotional confrontation as well as a physical one. In CHINATOWN, Noah Cross doesn't just get away with his crimes, he takes Catherine with him, planning incest with the product of his own incest. In AI, it was not enough to leave us with a metaphorical status quo... David praying to the Blue Faerie for 2000 years (status quo because that seems to be the condition of most of mankind, stuck in a personal bubble of POV trapped beneath the circle of life, praying to a non-existent deity for meaning, fulfillment, etc. rather than seeking it from oneself). No, that wasn't enough. The story had to go full circle. It had to cross the line. It begins with a robot being created to fulfill the needs of a human. It ends with a human being created to fulfill the needs of a robot. The negation of the negation. Full circle. End of the line. All that time/space/one day BS aside, it was a great ending.
-
I would like to congratulate User ID Indeed! on having what is, most likely, the longest post in the talkback. And I'd also like to mention that the reviewers need to learn elementary level grammar. Quickly.
***Laughing at those who lack the language skills to survive in the real world, Max Fenig, UII! Disciple***
"Pete, the personal rancor reflected in that remark I don't intend to dignify with comment. However, I would like to address your general attitude of negativity. Consider the lilies o' the goddamn field or... hell! Take Delmar here as your paradigm of hope."--Ulysses Everett McGill, O BROTHER, WHERE ART THOU?
-
sorry man, but this just really irritates me... those are NOT aliens
-
Thank you.
(Pay attention to the many subtle hints given in the film) -
To add to - or silence - the non-debate about whether the beings at the end of the film are aliens or super-mechas, I'd point out that there is a moment of deliberate visual forshadowing on the part of Spielberg that effectively underlines the fact that the beings are intended to be interpreted as super-mechas.
When David is first introduced into the film, he is bathed in a blinding light and his silhouette appears as identical - long, slender, with a large head and thin neck - to that of the final appearence of the robots.
Still, I'm not all that impressed with A.I. itself. I think the film is fundamentally flawed in that it asks us to accept that this machine is capable of having "real" feelings when that's something I just can't buy into even in a sci-fi fantasy.
In Pinocchio it's fine because we're clearly dealing with a world of magic but A.I. is supposed to at least pay lip service to science and intelligent speculation and what we get is a lot of sentimental clap trap about how robot boy's love is somehow pure and true - what garbage!
And I have to say the final scenes of David approaching his mother in bed had a very creepy - and surely unintended by Spielberg - Oedipal vibe. Even beyond Oedipal. Not to get too obscene or explicit about it but I couldn't help thinking that David is, well, essentially a - um - battery-powered item.
So we have a human woman lying in bed next to what boils down to a boy-shaped vibrator that has spent the last couple of centuries fixated on trying to be "real" for her. (And remember his pleas to her when she abandons him in the woods that he'll "love her better" or words to that effect?) So maybe subconsciously this is the most twisted mainstream movie ever made. And maybe Kubrick was perversely trying to trick the wholesome Spielberg all along into making a throughly demented picture that would have these seedy, cynical undertones running through it.
If so, hopefully somewhere Kubrick is laughing his ass off.
-
These postings are hilarious and sometimes insightful. I am surprise that Ridley Scott is hardly mentioned here. He would have definitely captured the tone.
-
Jul 06, 2001 7:37:22 PM CDT
A.I., 'The Natural', and "Do movie critics have talking points?"
by stdlae13
I agree with Harry up until the discussion of the end.
I think most of us have seen "The Natural", my favorite movie. It took me along time appreciate the film, especially since the first time I saw it I was 13. Then I saw it about being a second chance at success. Now I see it as a study on how our motives for living can ruin us, or exalt us based on our choices. When Hobbes was humbled, only then was he allowed a chance at success. Only when he could finally walk away, was he allowed victory. Allowed to overcome his past, to out shine his accuser, and sacrifice his future for someone else ... Roy Hobbes was a hero on the grandest scale.
But that's not how Benard Malamud saw it, the author. The movie and the book follow very close, VERY close, until the end ... and it the book ... Hobbes strikes out!
I read the book when I was 14, after learning to appeciate the movie for a year. When I reached the ending I thew the book down, I was angry ... and to this day, I still don't understand why the author payed such a terrible insult to such a wonderful character that he so carfully painted over 250 pages. I do not understand. But I am a romantic, not a naturalist ... so for this reason I found the end for A.I. oh so special.
David isn't perfect. He's easily fixated when challenged, as the eating scene alludes to. He even cocky, until left in the woods. He does experience genuine fear, and he faces overcoming obstacles. And his acceptance and determination of persuing the 'blue fairy' is quite amazing an abstaction for a machine, really ... think about it.
He even understands his uniqueness more than his creator, who is very willing to postitute many images of his late son to a dying world. Sad, David is made in his makes late son's image, but it's eventually lost on the maker.
I loved the ending ... because it was hope actualized, but not without cost or suffering. Or learning, and if you don't think David learned ... look again. Just because he was steadfast in his goal, does not mean he did not learn. But was the ending perfect ... no, David was not tested in his motives. If he could some how only have been tested and proved ... that would have been great. But it was satisfying ... or atleast to me.
And by the way, how come so many movie critics pan this film the same way. Are there 'talking points' out there?
But hats off to Harry for the biggest admisiion of them all, A.I is science-fantasy ... not science-fiction. Quite different.
-
that every person must be selfish, even when it thinks it is being unselfish. When a person cares for another, it believes it has made a good emotional investment. Every person must survive, and if being nice to each other is the best solution, then so be it. A couple in love can be interpretted as an example of how the selfishness of two people can coincide harmoniously. In the movie, David wants one thing only: Monica's declaration of love for it. But David has a limited imagination and the only plan it can come up with is to find the Blue Fairy to make it more acceptable to Monica, which in turn might win her love. When it finds what it believes to be the Blue Fairy, it asks over and over again to be made real, until it ceases to function. One might say that David becomes stuck in an infinite loop as in a sequential computer program, but David does not seem to be programmed sequentially. I think its imagination is so limited that it cannot think of anything else, other than to hope that the Blue Fairy statue will grant his request, which in turn might win Monica's love. If this is the case, then I also think that David pursues his dream more persistently than most humans would theirs. Persistent pursuit of one's dream is a selfish pursuit. Is selfishness so bad?
-
Jul 06, 2001 7:45:18 PM CDT
a couple of points, not that anyone's scrolling this far down
by finnfionn
at the end of the film, those willowy creatures, are not just aliens, nor just mechas....they're alien mechas. another humaniform species brought forth its successor, just as humans did in this Spielbrickian spacetime.
as regards global warming and then an ice age: think of tipping points. instabilities in the planetary energy system could produce wild chaotic swings. See the book THE COMING SUPERSTORM -
Several comments here. BUFFMAN: the answer to your question regarding Dr. Hobbs is easy: Spielberg and Kubrick gave little thought to logic and story! SO MANY plotholes are to be found in this shoddy movie. I posted 9 plotholes/problems in a post far above this one ---- not one person has addressed the problems in this film yet. Everyone goes on about the messages within the film, but they neglect to mention the multiple logic errors and problems with story and lack of characterization. HALLOWEEN68: I disagree with your comment about this film. Not everyone likes it. In fact, over half my audience hated this film and many walked out. The talkbackers here are fanboys obsessed with stroking Spielberg's inflated ego. Watch the box office numbers this weekend ... it'll take a major nose dive. BLACK JESUS: Man, you have lots of messages on the subject of the super mechas/aliens in the film (4 that I've seen, maybe more.) Obviously, if so many people think they were aliens, there was a problem with the film, not with peoples' perceptions. One poster said everyone in his group thought they were aliens. Since it's been pointed out that Kubrick's original story stated they were mechas, then I must agree with you. However, SO MANY people think they were aliens - this is a problem that Spielberg has created. Why did he make them look EXACTLY like the aliens in Close Encounters, and countless other movies/tv shows??? Why create so much confusion when it's unnecessary? As I've written above (and not one person has disputed that post either) the entire film is derivitive of many other sci-fi films. (Waterworld, Blade runner, Bicentenial Man (the novel or the movie), The Next Generation, 1941, etc.) Why didn't Spielberg create beings that were ORIGINAL??? This movie is maybe the most unoriginal film I've seen in years! Take any ten sci-fi films, take the worst parts of them and lump them together, and you've got AI. As for the mechas at the end, there was even a recent poster who said the "aliens" were MECHA-ALIENS!!!! Black Jesus, I respect your opinion, but can't you admit that Spielberg stumbled when he created these super-mechas?
-
I've noticed that in this talkback, not one complaint about the film has been addressed by people who liked it. Here is a list that I posted above ... you guys tackle it. See if you can explain these things. I'm betting you can't ... I don't understand why people actually like this film. One: If teddy had a whole bunch of David's mother's hair, why could the aliens only create her once??? Two: Why in the hell did the company give David to a family whose own child was frozen and might be woken at any time??? Three: What kind of programmer would create a robot that could grab on to a kid and pull him underwater and drown him??? Four: Why did William Hurt go to all the trouble to find David only to let him jump off the building and let him sit underwater for so many years. Five: Why ignore Jude Law's character? He was the most interesting character in the movie! They should have stuck with him more --- the murder plotline was actually interesting. Who really murdered the girl? Why? These things SHOULD have been addressed. Six: Why did the super-mechas speak in a language that had to be subtitled? WHy did theylook exactly like aliens?? Seven: Like the cops would let their "amphibicopter" get hijacked to New York. They can't track it??? Eight: Wasn't it just a little too easy, finding the building with Hobsy in it? It was like the very first building they hit in Manhattan. Nine: If Robots don't cry out for their lives, and don't have feelings, why did one of them ask for his "pain receptors" to be shut off??? Ten: There is no DNA in hair ... only in root cells (there were no root cells in the hair sample). Eleven: Just how long did it take David to find the Blue Fairy? I count 2 days, maybe 3! That's enough time for Hobson to reprogram Dr. Know? Can we believe that David found Dr. Know 3 days after being abandoned? Twelve: How can the planet's poles melt and then suddenly freeze in only 2000 years? This is unrealistic. Ice Age cycles take 100 000 years at present ... even assuming we'll have drastic climate changes, 2000 years is way too quick. How can you talkbackers ignore all this stuff? Don't you care about logic, story and character development??? All this time, I thought you did. I haven't even mentioned the films that AI has copied! So talkbackers, take your best shot here (but please be respectful). I haven't attacked anyone here ... just gave my opinion on this unoriginal film.
-
serves to discuss ideas relevant to the movie. These ideas, whether they be the surprise and logic of events, the similarities and differences with respect to other movies, the moral of the story, or the reality of the characters, are enjoyable to discuss. When a movie does not conform to one's general expectations, then one is inclined to hate it. When the same movie conforms to another's general expectations, then it is inclined to like it. When expectation changes, opinion changes. I think opinion is so subjective that some are inclined to seek safety in numbers, so there would be an illusion of objectivity and an enforceable self-righteousness. In AI, the rule appears to be: an event is allowed to occur so long as it does not contradict the situation set up by the events that have happened already; things are allowed to happen for contemplation and the viewer would need to supply the explanations.
-
i will agree with you that they should not have made them look so much like aliens, and because they did i can understand the confusion... but both me and my friend knew right off that they were robots, so to people who are really thinking about it instead of just saying "looks like aliens, must be aliens" it's not necessarily a flaw in the movie... and that's the problem i have... people tend to see something and take the first thought that pops into their head as fact, rather than really think about it
-
Jul 06, 2001 9:43:50 PM CDT
Dude, don't even THINK of uttering the name of Ridley Scott in t
by alexanderdelarge
That's to the Ridley Scott = Kubrick+Speilberg commment someone posted up there. This is just SO wrong. I couldn't give a fuck about who you compare spielberg to, but have some fucking respect. Ridley Scott is not even fit to munch on Kubrick's decaying nutsack. I sincerely hope you shit broken glass from now on, mister!
-
The whole time/space/clones only last a day BS was horrible. But it was beside the point. Whether the supermecha could create Monica a gazillion times was beside the point. I suspect that Speilberg was playing on the cliche of giving everything for just one more day with the person you love. The point was that, in the end, a human being was created for the pleasure of a robot.
Why did the company give David to a family with a child in cryo-freeze? Why not? In the original short story, there was no child. Monica and Henry won a reproduction lottery and were finally allowed to have a child, making their David robot unnecessary. The movie's handling of the situation adds conflict.
What kind of programmer would create a robot that could grab a kid and pull him underwater? What kind of programmer creates a computer that could break your foot if it falls on it? The point is that David isn't programmed to serve or protect humans. David is programmed to love and be loved by Monica. Period. Everything is subservient to that programming and its interpretation in David's CPU. A dangerous abandonment of the supposed robot code, but, as the movie made clear from the start, that was the point.
I don't recall that William Hurt LET David jump.
Gigalo Joe's subplot was a bit underdeveloped. However, the movie was long and the plot and theme wouldn't have been served by it. All we really need to know is that people are using mecha for everything... even sex... even for murder frameups. We saw who murdered the girl and why. The guy who framed Joe... seemingly out of jealousy.
Can the cops track the amphibicopter? Ask Joe. Also ask Joe if he's smart enough to deactivate the tracking device.
Was it too easy to find the building with Dr. Hobby? Hmmm... the building with the weeping lions maybe? Isn't it too easy to find a parking space in front of the courthouse in every movie ever made? But do we really have to ride around the block 6 times to get the point?
Pain receptors which register system damage is different from feeling emotions.
There is no DNA in hairshafts, but there was some indication that Monica was cut when she awoke. This should have been crystal clear so that we would know that there was blood on the hair.
Dr. Know was merely the wizard of Oz, and Dr. Hobby was Marvel. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. Dr. Hobby was tracking David. He was efficient. Is that a hole?
2000 years to the ice age was scientifically naive, but it was supposed to be symbolic of christianity... not technically flawless.
All in all, you are right, there are flaws. Most were oversights and some were purposeful for the sake of metaphor and the image systems running throughout. I found the film quite enjoyable.
-
Mmm. Gotta love catering to those who skip to the end, and that 10% that actually read through entire listings as long as this one. ANYway... Great acting, no question. Special effects? Astonishing, ground-breaking- do we really expect any less from IL&M? Story?..... Pardon me while my fingernails draw blood from my palms... The inability of reviewers and talkbackers alike to agree on basic themes and facts is amazing. I don't mean "amazing those dunderheads can't see it my way, the one TRUE way" (and you people who have decided from your mass concensus of two that you know the 'facts', please quiet down) but amazing that there doesn't even seem to be agreement on the primary themes. Ebert seems to assume any love a machine might appear to evidence is illusory; Harry tucks into issues of love and abandonment; other reviewers see humans being created to serve a machine created to serve humans as the primary theme, or the story as some sort of straightforward Pinocchio story. I didn't like this movie, largely on the basis of the last half hour; some sort of odd karma coming back to bite me for liking the contentious Moulin Rouge, I guess. I'm really tired of hearing people call this a fairy tale, or a fable. If it's a fable, what's the moral- no, never mind, don't tell me, I'd get twenty different answers from twenty different people. If you call it a fairy tale, please note that fairy tales, even original versions, tend to ultimately punish the wicked and uplift the virtuous. Yes, the punishments may seem all out of proportion to the crimes- Red Riding Hood getting eaten for disobedience and impiety, Cinderella's sisters being maimed and blinded for their vanity and bullying- but there's a theme that suffering by good people will be more than compensated by their later rewards. In a way I, too could have been happier with David simply throwing himself to his death at realizing his lack of individuality and the likely impossibility of reaching his dreams. As it is, David does everything he _could_ do in pursuit of his goal, right down to having the necessary lock of hair on hand and keeping it around for two thousand f'ing years. A Deus Ex Machina is dragged in, and it STILL isn't enough to really give the poor kid more than a glimpse of what he has always hoped for. (Yatta yatta all powerful aliens/robots (I don't care, move on), yatta yatta space time yatta yatta still can't do it yatta.) Does David dream? Does Teddy wait forever? Are there any convincing points of view that don't come down to the hero lying eternally next to the object of his desire while she putrefies and rots away? Christ, Spielberg, even Sisyphus and Atlas got a break eventually. I don't need a happy ending, but I want my unhappy ending to have a point. This one is contrived. You wait two thousand years, the gods show up, and you still get to watch your mother die at the end of the day. Hurt's character lures David with promises he has no way of keeping- and his own issues in making infinite copies of his own dead son, then inflicting this hell upon one such image, are never dealt with. "Do we have a responsibility to a machine that we make capable of love?" is never dealt with. Sympathetic characters are whisked on stage, then either quietly depart stage right when it's convenient (if human) or get killed (if mecha) when it seems convenient to the story. Humans are spiteful, mob-minded, manipulative, selfish, prone to double standards, meglomaniacal, hateful, short-sighted, and cruel, and our central character wants only to receive the love of one of them. Maybe advancing time two thousand years and killing them all off could be considered a good thing, but we're left in the company of their last, and ultimate orphan. Never mind whether they were advanced robots or space aliens. I don't care if the hair contains DNA or not. This plot is contrived towards cruelty, and it left me walking out wishing I'd spent the night at another movie.
-
I accept the challenge to address some of the problems you have with A.I. Problem 1: The super mechas explained about a time travel/space occupied conundrum. I must admit to not completely following their logic but I have not watched that many sci-fi movies either. Problem 2: Martin was not expected to live, indeed, Henry was cautioned to help Monica accept this fact. Dr Hobby selected them to receive David due to the loss of his own son and his sympathy with them. Problem 3:David was seeking protection just as he was when he grabbed onto Gigolo Joe. Perhaps a protection mechanism programmed into an expensive machine to prevent its destruction. Problem 4: Remember the "fish" (and PLEASE, don't ask me to explain those...I have no idea where they came from or what they were) carrying him away? Apparently he did not contain an embedded tracking device or Dr H would have been able to find him when he was in the woods. Talk about finding a needle in a haystack... Problem 5: The murder only acted as a catalyst to send Joe into hiding so that he could meet David. This is David's story, not Joe's. Problem 6: Computers today "speak" a different language from the first ones ever created. These were highly evolved computers with operating systems much more refined than anything available when David was developed. Problem 7: Unles Joe disabled such a device(which I do not remember occurring), then this is a very large plot hole that I questioned as I watched. Problem 8: Would you really have liked for the movie to be even longer than it already was as they searched and searched and searched... Problem 9: To evoke a sympathetic response from the audience. Problem 10: I have heard this asked before. In fact, it has been repeatedly harped upon on in every A.I. TB. Nuclear DNA is found in the hair root. Mitochondrial DNA is found outside of the nucleus and, if I remember correctly, is also found in the HAIR SHAFT. Nuclear DNA is used for forensice DNA testing. mtDNA can be used to prove that people are related and is passed down maternally. Problem 11: Dr H reprogrammed Dr Know. How long could this have possibly taken? It was more of a stretch to assume David would reach Dr Know to pose his query but, I would guess that other means of locating David were being attempted. This is just the one that worked. Problem 12: Perhaps a volcanic or asteroid theory caused a disruption in the earth's climate. This was merely my attempt to respond to your post and was not intended to insult or annoy, just answer. Perhaps, timmer33, you could help me to explain those fish???__________A tired of getting calls to the ER Bee.
-
I accept the challenge to address some of the problems you have with A.I. Problem 1: The super mechas explained about a time travel/space occupied conundrum. I must admit to not completely following their logic but I have not watched that many sci-fi movies either. Problem 2: Martin was not expected to live, indeed, Henry was cautioned to help Monica accept this fact. Dr Hobby selected them to receive David due to the loss of his own son and his sympathy with them. Problem 3:David was seeking protection just as he was when he grabbed onto Gigolo Joe. Perhaps a protection mechanism programmed into an expensive machine to prevent its destruction. Problem 4: Remember the "fish" (and PLEASE, don't ask me to explain those...I have no idea where they came from or what they were) carrying him away? Apparently he did not contain an embedded tracking device or Dr H would have been able to find him when he was in the woods. Talk about finding a needle in a haystack... Problem 5: The murder only acted as a catalyst to send Joe into hiding so that he could meet David. This is David's story, not Joe's. Problem 6: Computers today "speak" a different language from the first ones ever created. These were highly evolved computers with operating systems much more refined than anything available when David was developed. Problem 7: Unles Joe disabled such a device(which I do not remember occurring), then this is a very large plot hole that I questioned as I watched. Problem 8: Would you really have liked for the movie to be even longer than it already was as they searched and searched and searched... Problem 9: To evoke a sympathetic response from the audience. Problem 10: I have heard this asked before. In fact, it has been repeatedly harped upon on in every A.I. TB. Nuclear DNA is found in the hair root. Mitochondrial DNA is found outside of the nucleus and, if I remember correctly, is also found in the HAIR SHAFT. Nuclear DNA is used for forensice DNA testing. mtDNA can be used to prove that people are related and is passed down maternally. Problem 11: Dr H reprogrammed Dr Know. How long could this have possibly taken? It was more of a stretch to assume David would reach Dr Know to pose his query but, I would guess that other means of locating David were being attempted. This is just the one that worked. Problem 12: Perhaps a volcanic or asteroid theory caused a disruption in the earth's climate. This was merely my attempt to respond to your post and was not intended to insult or annoy, just answer. Perhaps, timmer33, you could help me to explain those fish???__________A tired of getting calls to the ER Bee.
-
I answered all your questions to the best of my ability but it posted about halfway up the damn list. Ya gotta love it!!! If you are interested in the answers I came up with the subject reads re: timmer33 and problems with A.I. I think I answered most of them fairly logically. Of course, who knows where the hell this post will go...maybe at the top of the list!
-
I answered you x2 but the answers, along with my attempt to explain the screw up earlier, somehow managed to post about halfway up the talkback. I'm just typing this one to see where the hell it winds up!!!
-
Jul 07, 2001 3:37:31 AM CDT
What they hell, I just want to post to see where this ends up as
by huneybee
I've heard that curiosity killed the cat...well, I'm a Bee
-
Jul 07, 2001 3:49:08 AM CDT
Well, well, well, my posts are finally appearing in the correct
by huneybee
I accept the challenge to address some of the problems you have with A.I. Problem 1: The super mechas explained about a time travel/space occupied conundrum. I must admit to not completely following their logic but I have not watched that many sci-fi movies either. Problem 2: Martin was not expected to live, indeed, Henry was cautioned to help Monica accept this fact. Dr Hobby selected them to receive David due to the loss of his own son and his sympathy with them. Problem 3:David was seeking protection just as he was when he grabbed onto Gigolo Joe. Perhaps a protection mechanism programmed into an expensive machine to prevent its destruction. Problem 4: Remember the "fish" (and PLEASE, don't ask me to explain those...I have no idea where they came from or what they were) carrying him away? Apparently he did not contain an embedded tracking device or Dr H would have been able to find him when he was in the woods. Talk about finding a needle in a haystack... Problem 5: The murder only acted as a catalyst to send Joe into hiding so that he could meet David. This is David's story, not Joe's. Problem 6: Computers today "speak" a different language from the first ones ever created. These were highly evolved computers with operating systems much more refined than anything available when David was developed. Problem 7: Unles Joe disabled such a device(which I do not remember occurring), then this is a very large plot hole that I questioned as I watched. Problem 8: Would you really have liked for the movie to be even longer than it already was as they searched and searched and searched... Problem 9: To evoke a sympathetic response from the audience. Problem 10: I have heard this asked before. In fact, it has been repeatedly harped upon on in every A.I. TB. Nuclear DNA is found in the hair root. Mitochondrial DNA is found outside of the nucleus and, if I remember correctly, is also found in the HAIR SHAFT. Nuclear DNA is used for forensice DNA testing. mtDNA can be used to prove that people are related and is passed down maternally. Problem 11: Dr H reprogrammed Dr Know. How long could this have possibly taken? It was more of a stretch to assume David would reach Dr Know to pose his query but, I would guess that other means of locating David were being attempted. This is just the one that worked. Problem 12: Perhaps a volcanic or asteroid theory caused a disruption in the earth's climate. This was merely my attempt to respond to your post and was not intended to insult or annoy, just answer. Perhaps, timmer33, you could help me to explain those fish???__________I posted this twice and it listed halfway up the posts! Then I attempted twice to post to let you know where it was and the same thing happened._________a very annoyed Bee
-
I saw AI last week and will probably see it again today. While I thought the film was indeed at times problematic, I was willing to accept the various twists the story takes, particularly its third part. All last weekend, all I could think about was this movie. I found it thought-provoking, profound, and deeply moving. I viewed it from a larger perspective, considered its layered themes and archetypes, and thought AI was the most serious, intellectually challenging, and, ultimately, rewarding film I have seen in a very long time. I encourage you to see it.
-
I tended to agree more with Moriarity's assesment of this movie.
To save everyone from tons of repetition...I am just going to cut right to the point and say the same things I said after seeing the Phantom Menace a couple of times.
You can only apologize, philosophize, and fill in the blanks so much with bullshit, but when you walk away you have to realize, this was a bad movie. You can wish it was a good movie all you want. I know that Harry and others are going to have to come to grips with this just like TPM. It took a few months, but after it all settled in, I was amazed at how many people really did feel the way that I did: That TPM really was a piece of shit.
That's what is going to happen here. There's no way I am ever going to watch AI again, just like I will never watch TPM again.
A few months from now, when the dust settles, a whole lot of people are going to be like "Yeah...that movie really wasn't too good."
Harry and some others try to pull all this psychological mumbo jumbo out of something, because just like TPM, they can't the idea of this being bad after they were looking forward to it.
Sorry, guys, but Spielberg has lost it just like Lucas has. Spielberg doesn't know how to make fun, magical entertainment anymore. This was his Phantom Menace. Just like Lucas, God knows there needed to be some checks and balances, especially in the writing department.
I hear that they are trying to get Indy 4 off the ground. After seeing what time and age has done to these two, I say no thanks! Hell, Harrison is 60 years old and is going to command $25 million right off the bat! Then if you bring Lucas and Spielberg on...damn your budget is in the stratosphere already!
After seeing what Lucas did to his other creations (Willow in writing and Star Wars with Phantom Menace)- I don't want him to come within a mile of Indy. He has become a very angry and bitter person and it shows in everything he touches. Just stay on the ranch with your kids and don't ruin anything else!
And now I guess I feel the same way about Spielberg. Don't make a fourth Indy! -
Jul 07, 2001 6:40:04 AM CDT
IT HAS BEEN 2 DAYS AND THERE IS STILL NO SPOILER WARNING THAT TH
by fernwick_
Jerks
-
Jul 07, 2001 7:47:58 AM CDT
I wonder how some of you people reacted the first time you heard
by user id indeed!
"Pfff! Oh, YEAH. Like I'm supposed to believe that there's some.... OCTOPUS just SITTING in a GARDEN.... UNDER THE SEA!! As if. Oh, SURE, there's some guy running around with a football made of "toejam"! "Toejam". Yeah, real mature. Completely ruined any credibility of this crap. I sure hope somebody died for THOSE blunders. These four idiots could learn a lot from Kraftwerk." This has been a Moment with User ID Indeed!
-
The reason nobody cared to challenge your "plot hole" list is because it was insipid - years down the road, when you personally achieve enough intelligence to actually understand the movie, you will realize that the "holes" you mention were ALL intentional. The entire movie was a Pinocchio fairy tale being told by a future mecha to other mechas. The mecha would exaggerate certain parts of the story to give them more resonance for the other mechas - the Flesh Fair for example. It was SO over the top because that's how the mecha was telling the story - "they tortured us and poured acid on us!" Get it? Also, nothing in the entire 3rd act actually happened- it was all a fantasy created in David's head to appease him. The whole thing about them re-creating Monica was NOT REAL. David meeting the Blue Fairy and sleeping next to a dead Monica was NOT REAL. When you take these *facts* about the movie into account, it all makes perfect sense and will stand as one of the greatest triumphs of modern cinema.
-
A.I. is not a DEEP film. It raises questions because it doesn't make any damn sense. For example, I wish someone would explain that whole bit about Professor Hobby interfereing with Dr. Know to send David to New York to test him? Is there anyone out there who thinks that makes any sense at all? What's the point of the test? Hobby says it's to see if David will try to follow his dream? But didn't David already show he was following his dream by going to Rouge City? There was NO POINT AT ALL IN SENDING HIM TO NEW YORK, except that it gave Spielberg a way to get him into the ocean. (And how the hell did the Atlantic ocean get so clean? Especially when it's soaking up all the grime of New York?) For those who defend the film by calling it a fable or a fairy tale -- that's no excuse. Fairy tales make sense on their own terms. There are motivations for the way people act. In this film, people acted at Spielberg's whim - inconsistently. For example, why on EARTH would Monica think it was better to leave David in the woods than to click his off switch. He has an off switch, right? The company that made him KNEW it might be necessary to turn him off one day - that's established, so he must have had an off switch. Please don't tell me to turn off my brain and enjoy the movie. I can't enjoy anything that requires me to turn off my brain.
-
...if for no other reason than to witness Teddy. I wish I could have a supertoy like that (and all of you other bastards wish the same...you know it)!! When he fell from the moon-ship and monotonously said, "ouch" (or "Ow") when he landed...that was simply classic. When Martin and David were calling Ted and Ted ran to Monica bellowing, "Mommy, mommy..." I realized Ted was the man...errahhhmm...supertoy...ummm...you know what the fuck I'm trying to say. Anyway, I'm too lazy to read all of the talkbacks, but in the ones I did read I saw no mention of Teddy being the "Jiminy Cricket" of A.I.. Before I saw the movie people were telling me, "It's boring", "It's slow", "It's the worst Spielberg movie I've ever seen"...interestingly these comments are reminisent of the comments made about 2001. Funny. Someone actually said to me, "David was cute, but they didn't develop the characters enough." I was thinking to myself, "what the fuck am I about to see?" I saw it, and enjoyed it. I walked out of the Theater thinking, "I see what Spielberg's doing here...there's a HELL OF A LOT more to this movie than what I just saw." The film stuck with me and I've been exploring it's themes, messages, and symbolism for almost a week. I too was a bit disappointed by being spoon-fed in the third act, and I thought it could have been more effective without any narration (or dialogue for that metter). However, as we explore and uncover more about this movie, I begin to realize how much more complex this movie is than I originally thought. YOU are being tested on many different levels: spiritually, emotionally, morally, intelectually. Could YOU love David? Whether you liked this movie or not says a lot about the type of person you are (not necessarily good or bad). This isn't your generic run of the mill summer flick. Me? Admittedly, I was sucke(er)d in once I saw Ted, but there were numerous great moments in this movie that made it worth my $9.00. "Any old iron..." Classic.
-
Many talk-backers defend the ending by claiming it is actually a dark, cynical ending. Please. If it's such a dark ending, why didn't someone tell John Williams. You just wish it were a dark ending because the happy ending doesn't make any damned sense.
-
It all happened last night, when I was watching Robocop, of all things, on cable. If a robot has the ability to learn, process giant amounts of information, then why can it not apply what it has learned about itself and meld that with that of humans. Many of you are debating whether those skinny creatures at the end are aliens or robots. But why on Earth can they not be both. Why could robots not take what they have learned, and become a combination of the two. Can they be called a species when part of them is artificial, and part of them is not? Who knows? What I do know is this: The last act of the film is the most vital to following its presentation of ideas. Free interpretation is allowed here. They could be aliens from another planet, galaxy, solar system, etc... Or, they could be a highly evolved mechanical group. My interpretation is that they are somewhat in between that. We, as humans use about 10 percent of brain capacity, that's a lot of waste. But a machine, that's capable of learning large amounts of information, can they not someday apply what they have learned, as we do. I think the main message of this film is that, through the evolutional ladder, we humans have something to contribute, something for the next group of inhabitants to learn from. I don't think the film has the contrived ending that a lot of people are saying it has. In my interpretation, David has not become a real boy. He has not become somewhat human in that last sequence. He is simply a pawn, for which the later inhabitants have felt compassion for. He is one of their own, and through their evolution, they have come more and more to understand human traits, and they've chosen to adapt some of those into their lives. Monica's last day is also David's. They have given him what he wanted, payed respect to him, and shut him down. They have ended his suffering. A.I. is not a waste of time, by any means. It basically says that, though we as the human race may end, our legacy will live on.
-
OR we can just admit this movie sucked. It sucked big time. It was horrible. NOTHING can justify the pure crap that was this movie. It was NOT thought provoking, or intelligent. It was like talking to a red neck in a suit: it looks OK at first, but once you really get it going, it just doesn't make any damned sense.
My list of complaints:
1) This film never drew me into it's world: I never felt like I was watching the future. The future world of Sleepers and Death Race 2000 were more complete, logical and compelling than the one Spielberg put forth. Basically, we're told it's the future because there's, like, robots and a car with 3 wheels, and a scene with NY partially underwater (but stangely intact and habitable). People still seem to dress the same, act the same, nobody seems particularly bothered by the apocalypse that has occured, and there is a Chris Rock robot!!!
2) The special effects were stupid and incoherent, example, in NY in first scene, we see the 2 towers, one has collapsed and is leaning against the other. They make a big deal about flying under it, the shattered building. 2000 years later, it seems someone was good enough to drop by and put them back upright. And put all their windows back in.
3) This movie treats everyone like an idiot: that voice over ending reminded me of the voice over at the end of the simpsons episode where they rip off Lord of the Flies. Only the Simpsons ending didn't make me laugh as hard.
All that said, you can see where this could have been an excellent movie, but it was pushed to PG and dumned the heck down. They spent more time trying to get star voice overs and cameos that distracted from the film. The whole movie should have been more edgy: this is, after all, a fairy tale set at the beginning of the apocalypse!!! The "multiple endings could have been handled beautifully as more of a "dream?" sequence, leaving the audience to wonder did all life on earth really die out? Did they really bring back his mom, for a day, or did they decipher his program and leave him in a programmed halucinatory dream world, where he would be happy.
I'm left to feel as if these two directors hated each other, and Spielberg deliberately butchered this film, but i know that is not the case. I hate this movie, this is the agriest I have ever been coming out of any movie. If you haven's seen it don't. MANY people walked out of the theatre I was in. I booed, and a large number of the audience booed with me. I spoke to the manager afterwards, and he said they were receiving large numbers of complaints. -
an assemblage of parts that transmit forces, motion, and energy one to another in a predetermined manner. For most of AI, the functional parts which constitute the Mechas are relatively macroscopic. Let's pretend that the creatures at the end of the movie are the products of Mecha evolution. Maybe evolution entails a more efficient use of material. As they evolve, their parts become smaller, so by the end of the movie the parts are the size of molecules. An assemblage of things that small gives the impression of organic fluidity.
-
Harry finally hit the proverbial nail on the head, and we just cannot argue any point he brought up here. Yes, it was typically long-winded and intercut with more of "Growing Up Harry" than any mortal should ever be subjected to, but his review is dead on in our opinion. Let the little robot who dreamed of being a boy stay with his Blue Fairy, frozen in time for all eternity. Of course, we always did like the Brothers Grimm for their sense of justice and irony. ~ The Crystal Lich, MovieCrypt.com
-
I've seen it twice and I haven't experienced any of the negative audience reactions some of the fanboys are reporting.
That said, it would probaby be a bad movie if your average AICN poster enjoyed it. There's always The Mummy 2 for that particular segment of the movie-going population. -
Harry still claims to do reviews different and he used to do so. But recently he has been giving away big plot points without a spoiler alert like before. Has anyone else noticed this?
-
The family is clearly told at the beginning that if David is imprinted with love, and then the family decides they don't want him any more, they have to take him back to the factory to be destroyed. But once Hobby finds David in New York, Hobby shows no inclination to destroy him. This film makes no sense at all. The characters do not behave in any consistent manner. I don't care if it is a fairy tale or a fable, it should have some sort of logic to it.
-
There's only one thing Kubrickian about Speilberg's AI and that's the solitary image of David wishing he were a real boy for eternity. But we are never left to ponder this idea nor relish in its magnitude. No matter how Kubrick wanted the last part of the film (whether he was obsessed or stuck on telling a Pinnochio story), I assure you he would not have muddied this rather nakedly human theme. It opens up so many questions about existence, life and death, how we are all essentially alone in this world. It's a beautiful story and Spielberg just about ruined everything that was fascinating about it. cruelty + sentimentality - plot - character development x special effects = AI
-
AI is more than a fairy tale. It is an allegory about the meaning of love, and the nature of humanity. The last act brings the movie and its many themes and strands full circle (humans are extinct, robots survive and long for humanity's "spirit"). David's one day of being loved by his mother was perfectly handled in its bittersweet ambivalence. Read the NY Times review for a critic who really got it right on this one. AI is a masterpiece. A difficult, wondrous, fascinating, beautiful, heartbreaking, unequivical masterpiece. Like 2001, A Space Odyssey in its time, it is being widely misunderstood and resisted and fully embraced by few, but like 2001 I believe it will be acknowledged down the road as the great unique work of art it is.
-
One talkbacker asked what was wrong with "Hook." The biggest thing wrong with it, in my opinion, was that it seemed to preach that adults should refuse to accept maturity, but should steal childhood from their children. In Barrie's original play, he clearly realizes that there is something very sick and twisted about refusing to grow up. Even in the Mary Martin and Disney versions of the story, it is made clear that Never Land is a special place for children, and that adults don't belong there. By having Peter return and take center stage, rather than letting his children star in the adventure, Peter is selfishly hogging all the biggest piece of childhood fantasy for himself. (Plus Never Land looked like a plastic theme park, rather than a organic fantasy world.) I think this there's a similar problem with "A.I." For the most part, Spielberg wants us to be charmed by David. I admit David has some freaky moments, like when he smashes in the head of the other David - but I assume that's a Kubrick left over. For the most part, Spielberg seems to think David is pretty cool. But a robot who can never grow up, who can NEVER MATURE, is actually a pretty sick idea.
-
I think that it's pretty much a great film. While I still think the super-mechas at the end could have been a little more original, I can't imagine 'A.I.' ending underneath the ferris wheel. The very last scene is one of the most haunting I've seen. I really don't understand the hostility to this movie. I'll leave you to drool over your 'Snatch' dvd's. Spielberg's given us some dreck before, Kubrick might have done this better, but 'A.I.' is film making of an exceedingly high caliber.
-
And while I understood it better this time, and it seemed to make more sense as a whole, it did not MOVE me the way it did the first time.
The first time I saw this movie, I had purposely avoided reading any advance reviews or talkback so that I could see the movie with a fresh perspective, to allow it to stand on its own. The second time I had read as many reviews as I could find and pretty much all the talkback here.
What I found was that the first time, although the ending semmed somewhat contrived and a bit too pat, it was still powerful and gave David a sense of closure and peace. The second time, I found myself looking for tiny irrelevant details, and viewing the story from an artificailly influenced standpoint, that of it being a super-mecha fairy tale. I was unable to lose myself in the story and as such was much less affected emotionally by the story.
On the whole, I think Spielberg both suceeded and failed with this picture. While it stands up to more scrutiny when you know in advance more about the intentions behind the film, the film, by itself, is a piece of art, just like a painting or a musical composition. It has to make sense on its own terms for an uninformed viewer; it has to stand on it's own without explanation.
*******SPOILERS AHEAD*******
Now when I look at this film as a complete fairy tale, being told by a super-mecha to other young super-mechas around some distant super-mecha campfire, it works completely. Fairy tales don't always make complete sense; they don't always move in a logical manner. And when you see one train of thought ending and another one coming up somewhat randomly, or the sense of time-compression through out the whole film (David is abandoned in the woods, and less than one week later in is Manhattan in Prof. Hobby's office), you can attribute it to the story-telling techniques of the super-mecha sitting near the campfire. ("And then David went to Rouge city and found Dr. Know, and learned all he needed to know, and then he flew to Manhattan ..." etc.
However, I have never read "Supertoys Last All Summer Long," nor am I privvy to the private thoughts of Kubrick or Spielberg, nor had I read (before the first viewing) all the zillion articles and ideas posted online. And without all that advance knowledge, the movie is not complete. The super-mechas DO look like aliens, and although I noticed that they looked like the Cybertronics logo, and also like the first shot of David, this foreshadowing was not enough for me to realize that they were super-mechas. My first thought was that they were aliens doing a dig on Earth for some remnants of a civilization and they found David. (Miraculously, considering he's a tiny child in an equally tiny vehicle, buried on the BOTTOM of a HUGE frozen ocean; the weight of the ice alone should have been enough to crush him, Coney Island, and most of the buildings in New York under the water line, but that's nit-picking. Suffice it to say they found him.) It didn't become obvious to me that they were in any way mechanical until they started downloading his memories and passing them around by touch. But even at that point, it wasn't obvious that they were mechas that evolved from something on Earth. Perhaps they were alien machines that looked exactly like their alien creators from some other world.
The point is, the whole final part of the film was nebulous and unclear if you had no prior knowledge of the intended storyline. It wasn't clear exactly who they were or why they would take an interest in making an ancient child robot happy. I think it COULD have been made clearer, but perhaps Spielberg assumed that everyone knew the entire backstory of the film. Without that backstory, this film does not deliver a coherent, complete thought. However, with the backstory, the film is far less powerful. Oh well, at least it's making people talk! -
No one wants you to turn off your brain. But please, turn off your computer. Thanks.
-
The first time I saw it, I spent a lot of time picking it apart to see what was Kubrick and what was Spielberg, and I ended up puzzled. I felt I needed to see it a second time to figure out how I really felt about it. This time, I decided to relax and accept the movie on its own terms, and I enjoyed it quite a bit more than the first time. It's not the greatest sci-fi film ever made, but its certainly the most intelligent one to come along in quite some time. Now a couple thoughts. I have to disagree with Harry; the ending was necessary, and here's why. I now agree with the growing consensus that the creatures at the end are not aliens... they're mechas, or at least they're what the mechas evolve into. Remember what Joe tells David: "They hate us because in the end, all that will be left is us." A prophetic statement. Mankind has destroyed itself, and the A.I.'s that we created are all that is left, and so we are seeing the end result of our little game of playing God. Now, here's my point: The A.I.'s have gone far beyond our wildest expectations, beyond us even, in many ways. BUT, they are still not human, or anything like human; in particular, they have no qualms about bringing David's "mommy" back from the dead, just as he demanded, in order to make him happy. He knows what his purpose is, to love Mommy, and he follows it with absolute dedication; while they have decided on a purpose, to make David happy (because, after all, he's the last living link with their creators), and they follow it just as singlemindedly. They're still machines! Even after 2000 years of Moore's Law, they still act like machines, and they're just as blind as David is to anything other than their own purpose! They've developed some degree of compassion, but they still don't understand us and they don't see us as having anything in common with them. That, for me, is the whole point of the movie: that THEY ARE NOT LIKE US, and THEY NEVER CAN BE, and in the end, THEY KNOW IT TOO. Okay, that's all, except for two questions for you to think about: who's telling the story, and who are they telling it to? I'm out.
-
What the hell man, I went to your site just to see what you thoguht of the movie and you fucking told the ending. I guess i dont have to see it now asshole i already know what happens. Thanks a whole fucking lot. This is the first and last time i visit your lame ass movie spoiler piece o shit web page. I cant stand people like you.
-
Jul 08, 2001 12:32:22 AM CDT
Buddhism philosophy of suffering is the answer to the moral of A
by vastejaculations
Can't you morons see the truth of the movie? A.I. is a story of Buddhist wisdom; that of suffering. David was programed to experience one human emotion to it's fullest, love. He suffered when his wanting of his mother's love wasn't being satisfied by her. The Buddha teaches us that the root of suffering is improper wanting. Later, through David's journey into the heart of suffering and desire, he comes to the blue fairy. Forever suffering, forever wanting. But the enlightened versions of himself (the alien-looking future robots) came to show him the way. Wanting to live as a real boy brought him pain. However, when he understood this and made the decision to *die as a real boy*, his suffering was lifted. At this point, he either died and moved on or evolved. That part is left to the imagination of the viewer. I choose to believe that "going to the place where dreams are born" meant that after David became enlightened, he grew beyond his original programming.
What Steven Spielberg and Stanley Kubrick wisely did was weave a story of human frailty, using David as the very basic version of us. We can experience more than desire of love, David could not. In that sense, the path to enlightenment was narrower for David than it is for us, but it was also easier to follow because the solution was single sided. Human beings can desire many things at once and experience more than one type of suffering. Why can't you people see this? Am I the only deep, enlightened viewer amongst you? -
That stupid speech William Hurt gives in the Manhattan Cybertronics office about how David can "dream" was gay. The part in the beginning where Speilberg has the black woman employee (as soon as I saw the black woman, I knew she was going to ask some profound insightful question) ask a profound, insightful question was gay. The part in the Flesh Fair where all the audience members throw beanbags at the fat ringmaster was gay. Teddy was gay. The fishies that take David to see the Blue Fairy were tres gay. "Hey, Joe, whaddaya know?" Is a gay thing to say (try saying it out loud. You'll feel very gay). The ending, where David's mommee sez she wuvs him vewwy, vewwy much, is gay. For a laugh, next time you watch this movie, when Ben Kingsley speaks that gay line at the end, about how David "went to the place where dreams are made" yell out: "He went to Disneyland?!" Ha!
P.S. It's also gay to use constructs like F*** or S*** instead of typing "Fuck" or "Shit", so don't do it if you're not gay.
-
Jul 08, 2001 9:14:28 AM CDT
What I did not get was why did the husband bring David home and
by brooklyn bred
That reminded me of Charlotte's web where the father gave his daughter Wilbur as a pet only to later take him away to be butchered, made no sense. AI was just plain bad. If the father brought David home from work then why'd he ask his wife if David could eat? Wouldn't he know that? I could ask a ton of questions but bottom line the movie was one long boring special effect. I hope next year's Spidey doesn't dissapoint me like this did.
-
I had three problems with this film. 1) The transition of 2000 years by narrative. However, this was forgivable. My other two problems with it I cannot forgive. 2) The salt-water ocean having risen to such a level would have eroded the buildings of New York city long before this movie could have taken place. It made for some pretty awesome scenery, but it was very unrealistic. 3) Even if an Ice Age could have advanced that far south in 2000 years - the advancing ice would have ground everything inside into flakes of metal and dust. Glaciers erase every shred of evidence of human activity. These two problems make AI a bad science fiction tale. It's still a good "fairy tale", but it should not be considered a good sci-fi.
-
Is it Buddhist philosophy to call people you disagree with 'Morons' and 'Gay'? 'A.I.' isn't science fiction, it's science fantasy. More 'Star Wars' than '2001' in that respect, the film is not set in a probable or even plausible future, but rather 'Once upon a time...'. Complaining about the films scientific verisimilitude is a little like watching 'The Wizard of Oz' and bitching about the realism of talking lions. "I'm a Harvard graduate and I know for a fact that monkeys can't fly, you faggot!" 'A.I.' is not a flawless film, but what's good is very very good and that's about 95% of the movie. It's not a very fashionable film, Spielberg has enough confidence that he doesn't need to rip off Tarantino or the Wachowski brothers. He's made an ironic film that has almost nothing to do with the 1970's. I do feel that he's softened the material, Spielberg is clearly uncomfortable with the carnality which pervades Kubrick's work. Still, I admire the film a lot and I'm very happy it was made. It's definitely the best American film of the year.
-
Jul 08, 2001 12:21:54 PM CDT
Y'know what I love? A movie that creates THIS MUCH dialogue! I
by smugbug
that people haven't shut down their brains when seeing this movie. That it's still on their minds the next day when their at work or eating their lunch. So, in a way, hasn't Spielberg and Kubrick succeeded as filmmakers? They have created a film that makes people discuss LONG after they have seen the movie. Kinda like Mummy Returns...I left the theater after the movie was over and that was it. It was over. I'll probably won't even remember seeing it ten years from now. OR two years. Its that forgettable. However, A.I. has, in my opinion seem to have struck a chord in people who like or dislike it. There's no grey area at all. You either just completely dig it or have such utter distaste for it. Wild. While I'm in the camp that believes that Spielberg has lost his touch, the touch that created such memorable treasures as, "Duel", "JAWS", "Close Encounters...", "Raiders of the Lost Ark" - I think his moving into his 50's has made him want to explore a little more certain social aspects of sci-fi. I grew up reading Ray Bradbury, and to me, his stories were the epitome of sci fi. Sci fi stories are more about ideas rather than fancy toys. Looks like thats what Kubrick wanted....and Spielberg was gamed to give it a shot. I haven't seen this movie, but I will once I'm all done with artwork in my preparation for the San Diego Comic Con. When I get back, you betcha that A.I. is high on my "must do" list.
-
There are scientific theories about the greenhouse effect triggering an ice age soon after it first triggers the heating, so Kubrik was basing his sci-fi on ideas already voiced in the scientific community. Also, it has been documented,that ice ages, once they start, take very little time (1000 years or even less) to fully advance to their greatest ice-mass, and then stay at that level for 100 000 or more years. So the film is consistent with current scientific research and theories.
-
I strongly believe the ending came about because of Hollywood's horror of anything that's "too dark." I think that horror grew even more after Babe: Pig in the City flopped.
Babe 2 was fairy-tale-ish, taking place in an artificial-looking world, with very expensive sets. It was a highly anticipated movie. Sounds familiar? And it flopped exactly because it was too dark. (Some people loved it.)
I can see Steven Spielberg sitting together with some other Hollywood types. Deciding that it's better to be "on the safe side" and give the public an uplifting ending. Maybe following the train of thought that, if you cry tears of happiness in the end, it makes up for the long, dark journey.
Unfortunately, it seems that most people are crying tears of frustration about the ending. I'm one of them.
I completely agree with Harry. Another thing that can't be pointed out enough: The music at the end made it a million times worse. It was the music for a love scene.
I literally pleaded (wordlessly): "Please, no incest ending... no incest ending..." The rational part of me knew that Spielberg wouldn't let the boy kiss his mother on the mouth. But everything... the set-up of the scene in bed, the music, etc... seemed to lead to exactly that.
I think that's why most people hated the ending with such a fervor. It made it impossible to connect with the scene on an emotional level, because of the taboo. If it would've been a more typical mother/son situation... for example, Monica tucking David into bed... that still wouldn't have been perfect, but much easier to digest.
Apart from these criticisms--awesome movie. Anyone who recommends waiting for the video is a real bozo IMO. (There I go, first forum posting and I'm already throwing flames!!) The visuals were breathtaking. And I connected very much with the love/responsibility theme. Harry's comment--"the best movie with the worst ending"--really nails it IMO.
I recommend, go see it. You can always walk out once the ice age sets in. And by the way, I think the alien-robots looked really cool, and would justify a movie all of their own... :-)
Jo -
Hello,
Fresh virgin meat here. Ive lurked for months. I read Harry's review and had to respond. I only have one thing to say:
'Nuff Said! -
What the shit is that, David gets to sleep for eternity and teddy gets the shaft. Seriously though, the end of this movie was badass, I dont see how everyone can bitch so much about it.
-
1)When Teddy is running after the balloon as the maid sings the Hebrew(?) lullaby to David. Anybody know the translation of what the maid was saying? I think it is important. 2)What is the significance of Gigalo Joe's parting words... "I am". 3)If you look closely at the submerged Manhattan you can see some weird looking boats. Is Manhattan now all sacred ruins? Are there other businesses there? Why are there waterfalls pouring from some of the buildings? Why do many robots go to "the end of the earth" and never come back? Why are mecha banned from Manhattan? 4)Does the opening scene take place in Manhattan? Now I'm off to finish watching "Don't Tell Mom The Babysitter's Dead" co-starring David Duchovny.
-
A.I.is the type of film that in five to ten years,everyone will act like they loved at the first viewing(ala Blade Runner) they will all act the same about Unbreakable.People piss & moan about how we need something original,then we get it and people piss and moan about how it wasn't what they expected or wanted!People don't like the ending(s),How can anyone bitch about all the mindless drek??(no need for a current list)I will tell you,WE REWARD CRAP WITH DOLLARS.People bitch about movies that spell everything out for them,then,turn around and bitch when movies don't spell it all out.I read talkbacks about how Matrix2 is gonna kick LOTR,Spidey,star wars ass or vice vesa.All I can think isn't it cool for us as movie buff's that these films are being made?
Next time you say somthing "sucks" think about it.
Keep bitchin about A.I. and keep boycotting one big budget sci-fi/fantasy flick over the other,and you never have to ask why they made Tomb Raider 26,DUMMY. -
I would've had Martin dug up David instead of those aliens. All grown up now, Martin is wiser and less cruel. Then he can explain to David the pain his mother endured for abandoning him in the forest. At the very least, it would make the ending more human.
-
I was emotionally drained by this film and the issues it explored. I agree with the statements you made about the movie. I really liked the ending. I maybe one of those that likes a little closure and it may have been just melancholy at the best, considering the life her would be leading after the film ends. But it was just beautiful that he finally felt loved, for just being himself. I mean she loved him because she didn't allow him to be destroyed, so she set him free. It's just he needed to hear it soo badly. I loved loved loved the bear. He is just great and was cool for the intervention he did. This was not a feel good film and my friends who saw it with me just thought it was too long and not enough character development. On the otherhand I went with no expectations and was rewarded with a thought provoking movie.
-
Delete my post, fine. That really was you at the Highland 10 lamenting lack of water on Mars in Total Recall! At least Harry has the balls to actually review the film, unlike you, trapped in anal-retentive robot purgatory. It is a thought-provoking film, and Harry's review proves it.
-
Jul 09, 2001 4:18:34 AM CDT
Artificial Intellegence...EXCELLENT. Some critics don't know wha
by promqueen
Okay, last night I saw A.I. and while surfing on the net this morning found this site. Its pretty cool. Anyway, I thought A.I. was one of the best movies I've ever seen in my life. It was perfect for a person like me. See, I believe in lots of weird things...fairy tale things. No I'm not talking about the tooth fairy or santa claus, but like I believe in extra-terrestrial's (did I spell that right?)and things like that. I mean, this whole universe is too big for just us to be in it. Moving back to A.I.,
It had everything it. It was funny, it made you think and it was really moving. Half the movie theater was in tears yesterday =) Alot of people hated it because they thought it was too "fairytale-ish" but I think THEY ALL NEED TO GET AN IMAGINATION. -
Hello selectd (or something like that), in response: Yeah, okay, I'll do more homework reading about the history of scripts if you learn to read a post all the way through. If you'll notice in the message that I posted, I SAID - "and three, even if it was actually written in the script, it doesn't mean he would have actually filmed it, or if he did, I certainly don't think it would have been filmed in the same way." Now the key here is, if Kubrick did have this piece in the original screenplay, it doesn't mean he would of went through and filmed it, and if he did, it doesn't mean he would of filmed it in the same way. Screenplays go through quite a few changes during film-making. I whole-heartedly think that if Kubrick tried filming that last bit and saw how it was turning out, he would've either dropped it, replaceed it, or altered it in a way to where it would've meant something meaningful to the film. And again, Kubrick is not Spielburg; I think if Kubrick had actually filmed that sequence, it could've come off being pretty cool. Kubrick and Speilburg's styles and visions are nothing alike though. Kubrick "wanted" Speilburg to do it because it would've probably come off as being to demented if he would've done it, he wanted it to be more warm and wholesome; something Speilberg's an expert at. Nothing wrong with that. Speilberg, in his day / and still to a certain extent, is an excellent film maker. Point: if Kubrick was alive during the filming of that last bit, or during post-production, I don't think it would've stayed in the movie, or if it did, it wouldn't have stayed in the movie as is. The ending is just too weak, there are too many flaws in it (and a certain lack of substance). As I stated before, Kubrick is or was a perfectionist (known as one of the most anal retentive people in hollywood, when it came to film-making). I just don't think he would've allowed the ending to happen the way it did. And just for the record, I don't think reading another websites FAQ board constitutes as doing ones homework. Nor do feel I need to do homework to contribute what is represented here: My own opinion, which merrits same as anyone elses opinion on this message board. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't give you the right to say whether or not it is contributing anything to the talkback or not. We are talking about a movie review here after all, which is "in fact" someone elses opinion.
-
TINY PSEUDO-SPOILERS**
There were two things about Monica that made her seem really selfish after imprinting David. First off, when talking to David she called Martin "my son," which, to me, only served to distance David from the family. Second, in that scene just before Martin walks up and asks Monica to read Pinocchio, Monica is showing David how to divvy up Martin's medicine -- this said to me that she, like Martin, planned to use David as something other than family now that Martin was home. She seemed to be preparing David to serve the family, rather than be a part of it. This all may be nitpicking, but they're just some things that stuck out to me ... -
Maybe because I am disturbed by my eagerness to embrace the idea of a robot boy being programmed to love.
Maybe because David the robot was more human and possessed more human sensibilities than did the humans in this film who seemed to be very cold, irrational and incapable of any real "humanity" or feeling.
The fact remains that 6 days after seeing A.I. I remain haunted by it.
Especially by the first part of the story.
When Monica first began warming to the strange little robot boy, I felt such joy, such elation..
When she initiated the sequence that would forever tie David to her and I thought, she to him, I was all for it and on the edge of my seat with anticipation.
But, then as she completed the sequence, David's pleasant but vacuous expression subtly changed.
His eyes softened and his face became suffused with,well, FEELING for his "mommy" .
It was then that the hairs on the back of my neck stood up and I was filled with a dark sense of foreboding and of dread.
It was also then that I became emotionally involved with David's character and hoped for a happy ending for him even as I knew in my heart there was little chance there COULD be a happy ending for David.
Maybe I can't stop thinking about A.I. because it hits too close to home for me.
I have both a father that left me as a young girl and a mother who couldn't warm to me because I reminded her too much of that father.
I feel "stunted' in my emotional growth. I have surely aged but have not grown up.
What's more, even though I am intelligent enough to know that not all mother's are created equal, my common sense compelling me to "move on", I hope against hope that my mother and father will wake up one day and suddenly realize they love me.
STILL I do this and not because I was programmed to but because that's human nature.
Professor Hobby told David that he was already a "real boy" because he possessed the human weakness of hoping for the impossible.
This was a provocative film and Haley Joel Osment's performance was nothing short of brilliant.
I don't see him hitting puberty (he is now 13) and subsequently having his career hitting the skids.
There were, however, flaws in certain aspects of the film.
There were several areas that were underdeveloped but maybe that has more to do with the brain numbing fare I have come to expect during the summer months.
I was literally blindsided, especially considering this was a Speilberg picture.
I am no film student or intellectual and have never found myself able to "get" the Kubrick films I've seen(with the possible exception of "The Shining" which now that I am more familiar with his work seems to me to be the least Kubrickian of all Kubrick's films).
I only recently saw 2001 and all the "monolith" and "monkey" scenes did for me was to finally know the source of the Sesame Street takeoffs I saw as a kid.
I mean, who knew?
I saw "A Clockwork Orange" as an adult as well and frankly, found it to be a cleverly titled film that was far too dated for me to appreciate, sort of like that 'futuristic' ride at Walt Disney World that has such a cheesy, campy quality, it just comes off as way strange.
"Eyes wide Shut" was interesting I guess... godawful piano score aside, it was beautiful to look at. Even the sexual debauchery scenes had a certain picturesque quality that held my attention even when I felt I wanted to look away.
A.I. has been described by some as long and boring
(maybe like this post? LOL)
I wonder whether these people were disappointed in this film because of the way it was marketed
I liken it to the way I felt at seeing Tim Burtons' "A Nightmare Before Christmas" .
All the singing and dancing were wholly unexpected and I felt duped .
However, once the initial shock passed, I thoroughly enjoyed the movie and like it more and more as time goes by.
A.I. was imo , akin to undergoing some painful but necessary life experience that , while uncomfortable at the time, I wouldn't change for the world, the lesson learned being that valuable.
It totally made me rethink what defines humanity.
I also think the whole "intelligent' versus "unintelligent" arguments I've seen on other boards as explanation for why some love this film and some hate it are off base.
I felt this movie viscerally, because of my life experiences, not my I.Q.
Oh and as I finish writing this I have seen the A.I. twice more and could easily write a whole lot more-LOL-like on how
I completely disagree with the assertion of some, that the final 30 minutes, ahem, SUCKED.
First of all, I found those final minutes so moving, but not in the usual 'Spielbergian' sense.
For me,those final scenes were a near perfect amalgamation of the two directorial styles.
David's having his 'mother' returned to him was without a doubt, Spielbergian.
However, the manner in which she was returned was all Kubrick, in my opinion.
Having David's Monica dying after only 24 hours spent with him is surely cold enough to have been dreamed up by Kubrick (whether it was in actuality or not) but David's joy at spending ANY time with his 'mommy' and at the end of the day, for the first time, closing his eyes and drifting off to sleep himself?
That seems to me to be in every sense a Spielbergian turn.
My final thoughts... During the Martin scenes, I found myself despising him.
However, after further reflection, it became clear to me that Martin had every right to be angry, considering that this"robot-boy" had not merely been taken into the home and used as a replacement almost but had also not been bought it's own things, but moved into Martin's room, sleeping in Martin's bed and given Martin's things etc.
This film clearly speaks to some of us on a very emotional level.
I have always enjoyed reading viewer comments here but never thought about contributing to any discussion before this movie came out.
Thanks for indulging me.
--daun -
To me, this was a great film. Not only the best film of the year so far, but probably the best the year is going to see at all. (unless Lord of the Rings succeeds incredibly) This movie shows Humanites' need for a creation to be loved by its creator. In a sense an imitation of what we desire of God. Very thought-provoking. If you have only seen it once, and hated it, I sugggest viewing it again. You may catch something you missed the first time around.
-
I have one, thanks. A great one. Which is why I resent all these voice overs forcing me to believe one single plot possibility when there are clearly many. Example: people are saying the whole last 30 minutes was a dream sequence. Well, duh, it could have been, in fact, I can imagine a great ending, a la 2001. HOWEVER, due to the voice over, it narrows all the possibilities down to one. If the directory blantantly spells something out through a voice over, then THAT is the truth of the movie.
We can all imagine how it could have been a great movie. We can all imagine the brilliant framework underneath, covered as it is in hideous neon signs. However, the fact is, the neon signs pointing things out ruined the whole experience. THAT is why people are angry about. -
What the hell was that crap? It almost had me until that CGI Robin Williams crap came on. Damnit, Spielberg putting out crap like Lucas now. But then again Speilberg's only good movies are Jaws and Close Encounters. What the hell was Kubrick faxing to Spielberg all these years? Perhaps it was someone impersonating Kubrick? Crap, Crap, Crap. I want my 8.50 back.
-
It seems the movie, it's depiction of what "humanity" is, what being human implies... it seems the movie is about whether or not the "soul" exists. Does David have a soul? Does the ability to love separate him from the other mechas; i.e. does the ability to love indicate the presense of a soul? Monica is a bit of a mecha at the end of the film, and the soul concept comes into play there. I wish I could remember the exact specifics the future mecha talked of when telling David how clones could only last a day but I remember it was all about the soul, having access to your soul after it has moved on to whereever it goes. And if indeed David did have a soul...did that mean he, like the Scarecrow, Tin Woodman and Cowardly Lion, already have what he was questing for all along?
-
Jul 09, 2001 10:22:44 PM CDT
Only the names of those involved got this movie any discusion at
by jlh
I have been reading these responses for the last week with the same fascination with which one watches a train wreck. I resisted adding my voice for a time because I didn't wish to justify the film in any way. It was a horrid piece of story telling that is only open to controversy because of the many ways the grandness of the vision failed. Lets begin with the simplest place. The premise as presented by the movie. Could a construct be made that was capable of love, and if so could humans come to love it in return. Almost every comment from those that like this movie contains the implication that David was successfully created to love. He was not. He was created capable of need for love, not capacity or capability for the actions displaying love. At no time in the movie did he show the capacity for love, let alone great love. This alone turns the movie into a cesspool of emotional pain without the redemption of growth or displaying a lesson in how he could have loved if he had made different choices. Not only did David not display love but no character within the movie was ever shown to have the capacity for love. The possible exception to this statement is Teddy, the one character that by all reason should have absolutely not had the capacity for love. Now looking at some of the gyrations that the movie is put through, not for purposes of telling the story but for purposes of gaining emotional attachment that the story isn't good enough to earn. 1) You create a robot child with the intent that it can be placed in a family and come to be a part of the family. This must be the intent if one is to discuss love even casually. Yet you don't design this robot to be capable of even rudimentary food processing so that it can participate with the family at meal time. Immediately you have created a separation, a wall between the robot and the family. Guaranteed failure of the experiment. Not that love cannot breach huge differences, but why have such a glaring difference that is presumably a technical no brainer for that time period. Only one reason, to beat the viewer over the head with his need to be accepted. A need that is never justified at any point by the movie itself. It also was used for a completely ridiculous contest between the child and the robot that again beats the audience over the head for sympathy. 2) This reflex that caused the child to grab the son and drag him into the pool. Logically this reflex makes no sense. At this point in the movie David has experienced nothing but negative interactions with this character. What is logical or emotionally true about having him grab the son? He has been imprinted to the mother. He is supposed to be programmed to love the mother. Why then wouldn't the honest reaction have been to run to mommy? In attempting to program a psycologically honest response this would even be the most likely program set since it would have the potential to create a protective response in the parents. This response would be in line with the stated goals of the experiment. 3) The father. In any way that you look at it he was a completely dispicable character. Either he knew about this experiment from the standpoint of putting this robot through hell and he screwed with his wife's mind in the process or he was simply a human with absolutely no integrity whatsoever. And the movie did not address either issue. He was just used as a catalyst and he was too integral to be a catalyst without motive. For gods sake, he brought the child/construct into the house against tremendous pressure. Then quickly decides to toss him again? It just didn't make any sense. 4) The Jude Law character. I actually enjoyed this character. However, even he was abused by the film. His story was useless to the film. Totally unnecessary, almost as if he existed only to alleviate the bordom of the previous portions of the film. Why a gigalo? Why a murder? David could have garnered the help of any of the many robots that came to the junkpile naturally and as part of the integration of the story. Why this huge side plot with no payoff? Simply to manipulate the story in ways it didn't naturally go? He could be arrested and disappear anytime he wasn't needed to actually provide the motivation to the film. 5) The father and little girl sequence. Why did the father bother to do anything? He takes David out of the cage and promptly sells him back to the man who will destroy him. Again, simply a manipulation of the story necesary to give them the opportunity to show audience sympathy onscreen in the hopes of generating it off screen as well. Not a natural flow generated by the story told so far. The rest of the film doesn't bear any sort of analysis from the standpoint of its capacity for telling a story. The rest was a complete load of crap used simply to obscure the story and create contraversy. I have been reading this board for a few months and many of those that have posted the glowing comments about this movie are the same folks that have evicerated much less pretentious films for manipulation, contrivance a lack of coherent plot. Yet this film which fails at least as badly if not worse than most and has all of its failures explained away based on information NOT PROVIDED IN THE MOVIE. The failures are excused because of the story that was attempting to be told. The failures are excused because the product throws a dishonestly created mishmash of emotional crap around creating the illusion of depth. Who cares what the authors/directors etc were trying to say or what they may have meant. What DID they say? Nothing.
-
Jul 10, 2001 8:05:55 AM CDT
I think we've entered the Pretend-We-All-Hated-It phase here at
by drath
I notice how other scoopers and reviewers are dismissing AI already, not even acknowledging that many many people thought it was one of the best movies to come out in a long time. I guess it should be expected from the Final Fantasy reviewers, they wanted that Internet murder mystery to be more central. Too bad. I'd hoped the AI haters wouldn't stoop to the level of all out denial. I guess I was wrong. If ANYONE reminds me of one-sided TPM lovers, it's the AI haters.
-
It seems that people are beginning to post more negative views of AI. And the pro-AI people are ignoring them, refusing to respond to specifics. What kind of debate is it when one side presents arguments, and the other side says, "Whatever. Get an imagination." OR: "Shut your computer off" OR: "Use the other side of your brain" OR: "You don't have a right to post here." That's what the pro-AI people have been doing here! Go back and read the posts. My complaints regarding AI resulted in a number of insulting posts and emails. Other talkbackers here who stated they didn't enjoy the film, or they thought the super-mechas were aliens, or that a LARGE number of people left the theatre were rewarding with very insulting emails. Way to show what you're made of, people. You're confronted with a legitimate debate and you respond with, "You're free to turn your computer off." It's pathetic really. The fact is the majority of people do not like this film and have real problems with its logic and story. Some people that responded to me said things like "Well, maybe there was blood on the hair ... that's where they got the DNA." OR "Maybe they looked at several buildings before they found Hobsy's." In the end many of your responses were pure speculation. A poster above said "Just because a movie doesn't make sense doesn't mean it's 'deep'." That poster is absolutely correct. Pro-AI people bought this film because it had Speilberg and Kubrick's name on it. It was unoriginal and totally derivitive of many other films. Peace.
-
It seems you have received many negative replies to your posts. It's a shame that people have to be so derisive. However, those of us who basically liked the movie can ONLY conjecture and speculate why Spielberg made the choices he made and presented the imagery he presented. You said, "In the end many of your responses were pure speculation." Of course they were. I, personally, don't have the answers you seek, the answers that will pull this movie together for you in some way that will allow you to enjoy it. You said, "Pro-AI people bought this film because it had Speilberg and Kubrick's name on it. It was unoriginal and totally derivative of many other films." Absolutely true. So was The Matrix, so are all the Star Wars movies, so are most movies made today. This does not mean that it wasn't an enjoyable film. I read an article today with Frances O'Connor, who, while doing press junkets for the movie, was constantly bombarded with questions about choices made by her character (for example, "How could you abandon David that way?"). She was flabbergasted that people connected so intimately with her character, that they could forget she was merely an actress performing lines. The artistry of this film, as a piece of art, may not lie in its story, true. However, the rest of the creation process of this work IS very well done. You said, "The fact is the majority of people do not like this film and have real problems with its logic and story." Perhaps. Time will tell what the majority actually think. Perhaps logical stories are not as important to others as to you. I guess the question for you becomes, is having a 100% complete, logical story more important than having good everything else. Acting, lighting, cinematography, editing, pacing, shot composition, art direction, costumes and scenery, sfx, music; ALL these things make up a film, and just because the story was derivative of other work enough to put you off, does NOT mean that NO ONE can like this film. Accept it for what it is: a movie. And don't worry about the talkbackers.
-
HOW DARE YOU apologize for some talkbackers being "derisive"! This is a direct quote from you posting to me under a different userid above (as Mark): "The reason nobody cared to challenge your plot hole list is because it was insipid - years down the road, when you personally achieve enough intelligence to actually understand the movie, you will realize that the 'holes' you mention were ALL intentional." First you insult, now you pretend like you're one of the more understanding and moderate talkbackers here. The fact is you - like many pro-AI people here - will insult rather than debate. Is that the way you conduct your everyday life? I've already addressed this issue with you Mark, and you are so lame. I believe that now more than ever. In the above post (as "Hoopie") you badmouth the talkbackers that are quick to insult, when you in fact did that very thing (as "Mark")!!!! Among other things, people can now see you are two-faced as well. As for AI, you said "time will tell what the majority actually think." Well, the box-office numbers show a 52% drop-off this weekend. That's a devastating drop, and it's proof that word-of-mouth is going to kill this film. Obviously most people dislike this movie. Now go insult someone else because they have an opinion about a stupid movie.
-
You've shown your ignorance by assuming that only one person can live in the same house. I do not share my husband Mark's opinions. I have my own based on my own viewpoints about the film. We have several email addresses amongst us. He uses one, I use another. Clearly you just want to rant. Well, be my guest.
-
While I agree that AI probably should have ended with David underwater with the Blue Fairy, I didn't hate the ending as much as I thought i would. I cringed when i saw the spaceship full of "Close Encounters" aliens looking very CGI and flying over the ice. I got annoyed when the lead alien spoke to David in a British accent. But otherwise, I thought it was a good "happier" ending. Like Pinnochio, after everything David went through, he got his wish. He only wanted to be a real boy so that his mother would love him. And whether or not he believes her when she says it is beside the point. She is the perfect version of the person that David knew, so of course she would love David. I don't think the ending is particularly "happy" though. It's not like the aliens gave him his mother back forever. They give him a day. And that makes it bittersweet and ultimately more heartbreaking. Anyone that has gone through a breakup with someone you are still in love with can tell you that everytime you see that person afterwards, and have that "just for tonight" reunion, the next day is hard because it brings all the feelings back. Because you saw just the good and forgot about the bad. And wonder if things could have changed. With AI, there is no resolution to the next day. It ends with David asleep, and I think, dreaming for eternity. There are no consequences for him that we see. In that way, it's a "happy ending". And a good fairy tale.
-
I will see A.I again on Friday and I cannot wait!
My 13 year old daughter, an international baccalaureate student,has seen the film 5 times and is going yet again this afternoon with several friends. I am curious as to whether any others of you have seen evidence of this film being very popular with adolescents.
The humanity of the mechas versus the inhumanity of the humans seems to be a main topic of discussion, sparking all manner of theorization.
--daun
http://hometown.aol.com/itzdaun/myhomepageindex.html -
Sorry I haven't replied to your torturously lame email, I am a busy guy and don't have a whole lot of time to argue about movies with children. But in your case, I will make an exception! Apparently you are a bit too wound up, as even my wife, who is far more level-headed than I am, can rile you up and set you off on another UPPER CASE, !!!!!!!!!!!!!!! filled rant. Anyway, I want to know *exactly* where you come off saying "The fact is the majority of people do not like this film". Where are you getting these magical numbers from? Tell me your source so I can verify this "fact"... The reason you are getting such "a number of insulting posts and emails" from talkbackers is because it is so obviously clear that you do *not* understand the movie, yet you scream at the TOP OF YOUR LUNGS that you do. My wife and I went and saw it again and it served to verify all the points I have been making in *my* interpretation of the movie. But, just to make you happy, I will tackle your "plot hole" list: 1) The super-mechas couldn't re-create Monica more than once because they actually didn't re-create her at all. That's just what they told David to appease him while they implanted the Monica memories in his mind. 2) Dr. Hobby picked Henry & Monica for the experiment because they met his very stringent guidelines. Whether or not Martin were to ever return was not a guideline under consideration. 3) The pool scene was meant to further illustrate the fact that David might, in fact, be dangerous to people in general. 4) William Hurt let David jump in the water because that's what you do when you are a scientist and you are studying your creation - you let it do stupid things and you evaluate why it did them and fix the next generation so that it doesn't do the same thing. It's called *research*. 5) I just don't understand this one at all. Joe led David to Rouge City and Manhattan. If this is some other usage of the word "ignore" that I was previously unaware of, please let me know. 6) It is my opinion that Spielberg made the super-mechas look like aliens simply to confuse people like you. For Christ's sake, Tim, Kathleen Kennedy has stated publicly that they are mechas. Pay a little more attention before you make ridiculous statements like this again. 7) The cops did not let them "hijack" the 'copter. They clearly pursued them and captured Joe and would have also captured David if Joe hadn't pressed the "dive" button. Good grief. 8) We don't know how long Joe and David flew around Manhattan. It may have been hours before they saw the lion's head - we just didn't see all of their search. 9) So that he would not feel pain. I would imagine that mechas would have pain receptors so they would know if, for example, their ass were on fire. And as far as them not "having feelings", that refers to emotional feelings like jealousy, hate or *love*. Not that they couldn't "feel" anything. SO. Back to Tim. You said: "Don't you care about story and character development??? All this time, I thought you did." You can easily see from this post that it's the fact that we *understand* the story enough that these points you raise are not questioned to begin with. How many people have to go over your "list" before this sinks in?
-
For me, "A.I." is as close to a perfect movie that I have seen. To me, it was enough story and ideas to make me think, enough special effects to dazzle me and the material interesting enough to make it entertaining. I think it strikes the right balance between thought provoking and sentimental.
I find it ironic that people say they wanted more things left unexplained and left to the audience, but didn't make the connection that the beings at the end were mecha and not aliens. Gigolo Joe has the memorable speech about robots being there after the end of the world. Their faces were like monitors and their circuits were visible through the skin. The camera kept showing the image of the corporate logo of the robotics company. They knew, just like researchers know today, that the future leans toward stream lining and sleeking of things. There is a reason why "aliens" have been portrayed with that shape. It is an attempt towards a perfect body. If humans are not around, why keep the human like skin and look? Even when David is first brought to the house, his first image in the door is a tall and slender like image. To me, it was obvious. And the thing about the ice age? The narrator mentions at the beginning that "weather patterns became chaotic". It doesn't necessarily mean the movement of glaciers. Temperatures on earth could just experience severe highs and lows. No one exactly knows what the green house effect will directly do. Scientist also know that the Earth goes through periodic "wobbling" on the axis. It is all a wild card. There is no proof that skyscrapers would be destroyed by water or ice. Also, the ending to me is not a happy ending, it is bittersweet. He is not really getting what he wants, he is getting a kinda "virtual reality". Things are touchable and seem real, but still in a virtual like environment. It plays perfectly with the whole theme of the movie. The super mechas want to give him want he wants (they have compassion for him, something humans did not), but since they can't, they give him an "artificial" one. I don't think David even left the site of the blue fairy in the ice. The mechas did it all there at the site. You never see Teddy getting out of the sub or being revived. Maybe the whole thing with the hair is just in David's (artificial) mind. The mechas are trying to put everything on David's "child" level. They say they can give him Monica if they have something, his "brain" brings in Teddy (in his "mind", he remembers Teddy being there where the hair fell), they have to obey the "child like rules" but give him a restriction. I don't know. Maybe I am reaching. That is one possible thought I have, the most far-fetched. But since I know that the material was discussed by Kubrick, I try to read into many different scenarios. Also, am I the only one who noticed that the light fixture at the dinner table in the beginning was like a halo over David (innocence) and then at Dr. Hobby's office in NY when he finds out he is not special, a similar light fixture above his head but not connecting -- a broken halo (innocence lost). I haven't heard it mentioned, granted I have not read every talk back entry on this site concerning "A.I.". I love this film. I am a huge Kubrick fan and I think he would be happy with this film. He wanted Spielberg to direct for a reason. I think it is the perfect balance of both film makers. The film to me is very thought provoking and that is not something you can say too often. A big drop off the second week was expected. Only things that appeal to the masses will have staying power, and "A.I." is not for everyone, but that in no ways takes away from its accomplishments. It will be a classic thirty years from now while everything else this summer will be forgotten. -
Mark/Martha says: "Where are you getting these magical numbers from? Tell me your source so I can verify this fact"... www.boxofficeguru.com states the numbers fell 52% over 1 week. That stat isn't too hard to find, it's all over the news and does not bode well for AI. Mark/Martha says: "1) The super-mechas couldn't re-create Monica more than once because they actually didn't re-create her at all. That's just what they told David to appease him while they implanted the Monica memories in his mind." Hmmm. Where did you get this? This is pure speculation, which you came up with to explain a lack of science in a sci-fi film. Mark/Martha says: "2) Dr. Hobby picked Henry & Monica for the experiment because they met his very stringent guidelines." What guidelines were these? To pick the most emotionally-trashed family around to inflict more pain on? Mark/Martha says: "3) The pool scene was meant to further illustrate the fact that David might, in fact, be dangerous to people in general." I assume mechas had been manufactured for years before David was created. Surely there are safeguards built into the mechas. Even AICN reviewer (Moriarty?) complains about this in his negative review of the film. There is no way a robot should *ever* hurt a human being. Mark/Martha says: "4) William Hurt let David jump in the water because that's what you do when you are a scientist and you are studying your creation - you let it do stupid things and you evaluate why it did them and fix the next generation so that it doesn't do the same thing." So he goes to all the trouble to get David home so he can watch him "kill" himself. I don't think so. Again, this is lame storytelling/writing on Spielberg's part. As a talkbacker said above, characters have to act consistently in a movie. These ones simply don't. Mark/Martha says: 6) It is my opinion that Spielberg made the super-mechas look like aliens simply to confuse people like you. For Christ's sake, Tim, Kathleen Kennedy has stated publicly that they are mechas. Pay a little more attention before you make ridiculous statements like this again." Again, you're being insulting here, something I did not do to you until you insulted me in your first post waaay back. I have stated that I believe the "aliens" are indeed robots, in a post to blackjesus above. The reason I changed my mind was because I took a look at Kubrick's original storyline. I will say, however, that Spielberg's vision was lacking here --- he picked a super-mecha that looks exactly like the aliens from Close Encounters. If you take a look at the last 10 posts or so, there are many people that believe these were aliens, even now. Mark/Martha says: "7) The cops did not let them "hijack" the 'copter. They clearly pursued them and captured Joe and would have also captured David if Joe hadn't pressed the "dive" button. Good grief." I disagree. Since when do cops let a stolen cop car travel far across the country before they catch up? Police would have been on them right from Rouge City. Mark/Martha says: "8) We don't know how long Joe and David flew around Manhattan. It may have been hours before they saw the lion's head - we just didn't see all of their search." Again, speculation on your part. The movie was way too ambiguous. Mark/Martha says: "9) So that he would not feel pain." Pain is an emotion. Why would a robot feel pain? Now, if you choose to respond to this, go ahead. If you throw in any more insults, then I'm through with you Mark. Your brand of debating is to attack personally rather than state the facts. Your last post, while extremely insulting, was the first one in which you tried to address issues that have been criticised by myself as well as others. That I respect. Your disrespect, however, is still very clear. If you respond, please be respectful.
-
AI's ability to maintain its grip on the people who see it is what I have come to enjoy most. Mark, I appreciate your answer to T33's whine list. I, too, attempted to answer and what amazes me is his/her obstinancy even when facts are pointed out. I also enjoyed seeing a different perspective to my answers. NOTE: I do not feel threatened by any differences in opinion; I appreciate the effort you took and the chance to view another rational approach to potential plot holes. Indeed, I had forgotten the significance of Joe pushing the dive button and was really unable to think of a good reason for a robot to "feel" pain as opposed to being unable to "feel" emotion. Pain is a sensory response, not an emotional one. If they could see, they should be able to feel. ______T33, Was my reply (which I posted SEVERAL times due to its being misplaced) unintelligible to you? Were other replies with perfectly good explanations beyond your limited comprehension? I really appreciated the response which pointed out that while the entire Ice Age might last for hundreds of millions of years, it did not take that long to freeze. I considered this arguement myself but was unable to find the exact information I needed to present a plausible theory. My contribution was on the DNA. I agree that there was no sign of blood when the hair was cut but, please, feel free to scroll up and find out about mitochondrial DNA vs nuclear DNA. Enough! If you are not going to reply in an intelligent manner when your questions are answered by numerous people, then don't bother to pose them in the first place.______Huneybee
-
There is only a minutes difference or so. Please allow me the time to read your post and respond before you go ballistic. This is the first time I saw you respond to the explanations others have given you. Give me 5-6 minutes and I'll be back. Or, if you just want to rant, you can do that too. :)
-
Please read "wayward_rogue's" post above. In it he/she addresses several complaints about the film without insulting anyone. He/She did a great job with the post. I point this out to you Mark because (as I've made clear) you have a way of debating which is based on insulting people. You're not alone there ... many AICN talkbackers are doing that. "You're not fit to post here," "You're free to turn off your computer" and so on. I've probably done this in the past as well. But you have done it here (to me) consistently without addressing the original inconsistencies in the film. It wasn't until your last post that you started debating properly. It was still insulting, however --- just read your subject header.
-
I thought I responded to you in my post titled "A response to talkbackers"??? It was a generic post, sure, but I received several responses by email as well as here.
-
I hope you decided to wait to reply but, if not, whatever. I will be typing fast in order to give you a timely response so please forgive all typo's. 1. I really don't have enough sci-fi experience to follow the super-mecha's explanation and will let someone else take that one. 2. The film definately gave evidence that criteria were to be met. It did NOT explain what guidelines exactly but showed that the decision was to be made by Dr.Hobby. I still believe it was because of their "loss" of Martin, which is mentioned prior to his statement that he will meet with Henry. 3. How did he know it would "hurt" Martin to fall in the pool. He simply grabbed Martin and began to back away. Where is this code of conduct that you and Mori have mentioned that robots cannot hurt humans? It is Not listed in this movie. Are you speculating? 4. David was capable of emotion and his destruction on the "other" David demonstrated this fact. I believe it was out of despai that he had nowhere to go and he just wanted to get away. 6. The super-mecha's were a reflection of the Cyrogenics (sp?) logo and of Daivid's initial appearance in the doorway. Perhaps the similarity was deliberate to illustrate how "alien" David would appear to the humans. 7. Since David and joe got a head start on everyone by disabling those nearest. They were followed but it took time to catch up. 8. If I remember correctly the Rouge City exit faded out and then the screen lit back up with them in Manhattan. Would this not imply that some time had passed? I may be mistaken on that one though. But, also, please reference my initial post. 9. Pain is a sensory reponse, like touch, hearing, etc. Love/hate/despair are all emotional responses. ________I admit to feeling some frustration that I could not see where you were even bothering to answer any of the people who took the time to respond to your questions. I do apologize for the word limited(a late addition to the post that I regret now) but that is all._______looking forward to see if you reply to this--------A Bee with tired fingers!
-
where you addressed any of the logical answers. I went back and read your "generic" post (again) and see that you are posting, but you are not saying, "Hey, ya know that makes sense. I didn't get that at first." or "I'm afraid that answer is not accurate and here's why...". I do not claim to have ALL the answers and some of mine were weak, i.e. answer1 and my initial perception of pain until I recognized the truth in what "Mark" had written. Hell, I'm in the medical field and the obviousness of that answer had to be pointed out to me by someone else. While it is your choice as to whom you choose to reply, it would be nice if when a fact is explained to you that you ackowledge this and not continue to beat a dead horse, re: blood on hair. That is where a large part of my frustration was created.
-
I went and saw this movie today in a matinee showing with about 10 other people in attendance. I went in with somewhat low expectations, since nearly everyone on this site has/had said it's a terrible film. I'll tell ya something that really shocked me. I loved the damn thing. I kept waiting for the film to drag, for me to stop caring about what happened to this little turd of a robot, but that point never came. I really did care about what happened to him, at first, no, he was awkward and stilted, much like you'd expect a robot to be. By the end I wanted the little guy... robot or not... to be happy. This might have something to do with my personal background, or even my upbringing, but I loved the ending. I couldn't see it ending any other way. Just the fact that he finally *earned* or heard his mother tell him he loved him struck me right through the heart. Because from my perspective, the only reason he wanted to be a *real boy* at all was so that his mother would love him. Once he found that his mother did love him, nothing else really mattered to him. Boy or robot, real or not, he had fulfilled his self-appointed purpose of life, and therefore could essentially rest. Simple enough. The boy's entire motivation for everything and anything he did was for the love of his mother. Not to be a real boy. So the frustation that he could never be a real boy was non-existant for me. Great movie, great actors, great directors, but not for everyone. I loved it. Hands down, the best film I have seen in a long time.
-
Jul 11, 2001 8:30:44 PM CDT
Truly NOT a great film that some hate, and have given good reaso
by antoniusbloc
First of all let me give dittos to Jlh who makes many of the same arguments i do about what's wrong with this film, but does it in a much more clear and organized way. Let me also agree with the guy who made the point that those who glowingly praise this film do not respond to our arguments but simply insult, and rant about how we're too stupid to understand it.To assert we didn't like the film because we didn't understand it and then give no explanation of your own is truly a reflection of someone who is rationalizing some imagined meaning or depth that simply doesn't exist. And to the guy who's gonna look for the Blue Fairy if this film gets nominated for an Oscar, start searching. I gave up on the value of an Oscar when American Beauty won Best Picture, one of the worst films I have ever seen. I am convinced the Oscars are all about politics, and at least with me, have no merit in judging a film. Notice how a lot of Dreamworks productions have been winning Oscars lately? Yeah, AI will be nominated. Spielberg seems to have gotten political hold of the oscars(as well as some major newspaper critics), so it will probably win. Ask yourself, if the exact same AI movie was done by a newcomer, and Kubrick wasn't involved, would it be getting the same glowing reviews from these major media critics?
-
of their interpretations of the ending likely will not find one. If you enter thinking that David succeeds in its quest for the love of its mother, then you will find evidence in the sequence of events supporting your claim. If you enter thinking that David fails, then you will find evidence in the sequence of events supporting your claim. These diametrically opposing viewpoints can be held, and the movie does not contradict itself. A third interpretation, which claims most of the ending occurs in David's mind, can be supported in the sequence of events too. Just before the Blue Fairy statue crumbles, one of the creatures says to the other that David has been with living humans. One might infer from this that these creatures have never met living humans before, but that they would like to know about them. When a creature's hand passes over David's face for the second time, David is put back to sleep. The creatures share in peeking into David's imagination. The movie cuts to a white frame, and slowly David opens its eyes. It finds itself in a place that seems familiar, but as it points out to the talking Blue Fairy, the place is "different." The movie shows the creatures looking down at a table whose surface shows David and its environment. One might infer from this that a simulation has been created from David's imagination so the creatures might discover something about David's world and its interaction with it. Maybe to further their investigation, they would like to make David believe that its mother can come back. But David already knows its environment is not real. So they need to tell it a story it can believe in: David needs a "physical sample." They present to David via Teddy from its imagination the choice to bring back its mother. The English speaking creature says "Give him what he wants." One might infer from this that the creatures wish to continue their investigation into what humans were like, and that they would like to know how David would interact with its human mother. But since they cannot really bring back the mother, they let David's imagination and desires control the events in the simulation. This would be why the mother is unfazed with its resurrection, and why it does everything David wants, including saying "I love you." But the investigation cannot last forever; the creatures set an arbitrary time limit to it, and to prepare David for this they send the English speaking creature to talk to it. The English speaking creature succeeds in this task, and the investigation proceeds as planned. The English speaking creature refers to human "genius." One might infer that most of the creatures, while they did not have first-hand experience with them, place humans on a pedestal and revere them. One might believe that their view would not change upon making their observations. Instead, through a reverse pschological suggestion from the movie, one's thoughts might linger on how differently actual humans behave from David's idyllic version of its mother. So with this particular interpretation one can arrive at a moral of the story comfortably.
-
Sorry, not sure if I got the spelling of your ID right. I've gone back to read your original post, and you're totally right, I didn't respond to some of your concerns! Here we go: Bee says: "Problem 2: Martin was not expected to live, indeed, Henry was cautioned to help Monica accept this fact. Dr Hobby selected them to receive David due to the loss of his own son and his sympathy with them." I don't buy this. They picked a family with incredible pain in their past ... and there *was* a possibility that the boy would be cured. After all, he was in cryo. Why not pick a family that had trouble conceiving? Then they would love the robot no matter what. Bee says: "Problem 3:David was seeking protection just as he was when he grabbed onto Gigolo Joe. Perhaps a protection mechanism programmed into an expensive machine to prevent its destruction." I sorta like this answer because yes, the response is repeated at the flesh fair. However, a robot that is being built should be built to safeguard human life. It was *the* most important thing in Asimov's robot books ... and like Moriarty, I simply can't believe that a robot could exist that would do this to Martin. Bee says: "Problem 4: Remember the "fish" (and PLEASE, don't ask me to explain those...I have no idea where they came from or what they were) carrying him away? Apparently he did not contain an embedded tracking device or Dr H would have been able to find him when he was in the woods. Talk about finding a needle in a haystack..." Now the fish thing is a problem. What was the purpose? I can't believe that Hobsy would go to all the trouble of finding David only to abandon him in the water. Surely an amphicopter wouldn't be hard to find (and why did the police not salvage it Bee???). Like a previous poster said, the characters in this movie simply did not act in a consistent way. Bee says: "Problem 5: The murder only acted as a catalyst to send Joe into hiding so that he could meet David. This is David's story, not Joe's." I agree with you. As a writer, Spielberg stayed with David, as he should. My complaint was that had the movie been about Jude Law, it would have been more interesting. Alas, the movie was about David. You're right on this one though. Bee says: "Problem 6: Computers today "speak" a different language from the first ones ever created. These were highly evolved computers with operating systems much more refined than anything available when David was developed." Speculation on your part? Or lack of clarity in the movie? Bee says: "Problem 7: Unles Joe disabled such a device(which I do not remember occurring), then this is a very large plot hole that I questioned as I watched. Problem 8: Would you really have liked for the movie to be even longer than it already was as they searched and searched and searched..." How hard would it have been to show them going around a few different buildings? It would have taken 5 seconds. Instead Hobsy's building is the first one in from the Statue of Liberty. BTW, why did they approach from the East, over the Atlantic Ocean??? Were they not in New England somewhere? They should have come in from the North. (Things like this bother me. Obviously Spielberg did it to offer the visual, but viewers are smarter than that). Bee says: "Problem 9: To evoke a sympathetic response from the audience. Problem 10: I have heard this asked before. In fact, it has been repeatedly harped upon on in every A.I. TB. Nuclear DNA is found in the hair root. Mitochondrial DNA is found outside of the nucleus and, if I remember correctly, is also found in the HAIR SHAFT. Nuclear DNA is used for forensice DNA testing. mtDNA can be used to prove that people are related and is passed down maternally." Well, I can't comment on this. Who knows? I think you can't clone unless you have the root. Why could they only produce the mother once? They had lots of hair. Bee says: "Problem 11: Dr H reprogrammed Dr Know. How long could this have possibly taken? It was more of a stretch to assume David would reach Dr Know to pose his query but, I would guess that other means of locating David were being attempted. This is just the one that worked. Problem 12: Perhaps a volcanic or asteroid theory caused a disruption in the earth's climate." Speculation again ... a movie needs to be clear, otherwise it strays into Steven Segal territory. There you have my response Bee. I received a lot over email, and I responded to many ... and as I said in my talkback, many people are saying "Maybe this happened, maybe this happened ..." To me that is weak. These questions should be answered in a film. I challenge you to read the posts above (there's a lot, I know) and check out how many are just slamming anti-AI people with no reasonable arguments. It is very frustrating and I guess your post fell through the cracks of that frustration. Once again, sorry. (BTW, regarding the fish ... someone emailed me and said that in a fairy tale, there is often some wildlife that will help the lead character find what he/she is looking for. This person suggested the fish were just helping David. What do you think?) In the end, when all's said and done, the movie is just too unclear and unoriginal for me. Some people have written to me the following: 1. The entire movie didn't take place, it was the super-mechas telling the story - which is a fairy tale. 2. The third act didn't take place, it was all in David's head. 3. The robots at the end were alien. 4. The robots at the end were alien-mecha! THere are so many different views of this film, and while some may praise that, I sorta feel it's due to ambiguous story-telling and a story-line that doesn't fully make sense and people are trying to "decipher" what is meant. As a poster said above, just because a film doesn't make sense doesn't mean it's deep. Sorry about the late and LONG post. Peace.
-
Jul 11, 2001 9:55:20 PM CDT
Gee whiz, kids, and I thought this TB was dead since it dropped
by huneybee
I am really confused as to how "everyone" is ignoring the problems with the film because they liked it and you didn't. There have been many very clear posts above about why people felt so deeply about A.I. I personally enjoyed the thought provoking issues with which the fim dealt and have continued to contemplate a number of them since seeing it. I felt that the beginning was boring boring boring and the moral issues that were raised could have been better presented by interaction between Dr H and the Swintons. I could not feel much sympathy with Monica, but then, I don't know how I would act in the same circumstances. She got what she wanted and was warned not to imprint David unless she was certain. I did enjoy watching the internal conflict she was under and how her maternal instinct and sense of guilt created the dilemma whether to return David to robotic "death" or not. Her decision to leave him in the woods, while tugging on the audience's emotions, was not necessarily cruel. Why would it be? He did not need to eat, drink or be afraid of the elements. She considered it saving his "life" but even then it demonstrated her inate inability to accept him as possessing emotions.________The middle sequence has David attempting to assimilate what has happened, facing danger, and beginning a quest. It is the middle of the oreo. Fluffy but you are compelled to eat it anyway, plus, it binds the beginning and end. We are forced to see that mankind has deteriorated as our technological expertise improves. David was previously insulated in his middle class home where as in the "real world" he has to face persecution and "racism" without regard to the fact that he is a "child". The appearance of the father and daughter simply shows that even the well-intentioned can sometimes be powerless while the turning of the crowd shows the flip side. Sometimes there is mercy in the midst of carnage.______We enter the final act of the movie in which David continues on his quest with the assistance of Joe, his accidental guide. I always thought of Joe as being more of a Jiminy Cricket than Teddy. Teddy, to me, was merely an impartial observer whom through we observe the story. He was a type of participating narrator. Joe was the one most able to assist David in locating information about the Blue Fairy and to look out for him. The self-destruction of David was present throughout the entire movie but never more evident than when he was faced with David2. Humans, when faced with their own mortality and the fact that they are not exempt from illness, pain or death, react to that loss through denial, anger and acceptance in stages. He denied his loss and felt anger at the loss of individuality through the destruction of D2. He felt denial and then acceptance when learning he was only one of many and, as is often the case, with humans, he faced depression at the reality of his internal conflict. Joe's words and subsequent capture forced him to continue his quest alone so that he could become "real" and thereby seperate himself from the horror of an assembly line of Davids.______The last segment initially made no sense to me and I felt it to be as unnecessary as the beginning, but, upon reflection, I felt a rightness in the situation. It allows people to interpret is as it applies to their own life. Simpe in its ambiguity, it touches everyone in some way. The alien/mecha conflict, is David sleeping/dead, is it better this way or that he does not see Monica again conflict touches more people than an easy they lived happily ever after. What I have seen most in the people who state they didn't like AI is not that they did not understand the movie, but that they did not wish to deal with the issues and moral values presented. Facing your own humanity and knowing that we sometimes fail as a species is difficult. Many are angry the film did not end the way THEY wanted. Well, guess what? David did not get what he wanted and you might not either. And that's what the real world is about.____________Personally I was disturbed, intrigued, depressed, amused, and overall, challenged to think out of the box of happily ever after that is usually shoved down your throat when seeing a movie. There are constance complaints about movies where, armed with one small handgun, the hero is unable to be defeated by an entire army of AK47 toting hoodlums without running out of bullets or getting killed. In this case the hero was one small boy loaded with emotions who refused to be defeated by an entire army of humans.___Is this a good enough "reason" for you of why I liked AI? If you did not see this movie the same way I did, fine, but please do NOT accuse me of watching soap operas. To me they rank right up there with talkshows, most gameshows, and wrestling.______Huneybee
-
Actually, I read your last post and I agree with it! The moral questions were interesting, though I felt Spielberg was hitting us over the head with it (Such as the comment made by the woman in Hobby's "lecture", and the whole reference to Pinocchio/blue angel). I do agree with your post. But let me put it this way: Plan 9 From Outer Space had an interesting story. It made me think about an alien race that wanted to take over the Earth. It made me think about the consequences of feeling too secure in life. It made me question my own mortality. However, the film is terrible. Problems in logic, etc. result in an unenjoyable film. My problems with AI are the same. While there are good elements, as a whole the film cannot survive. It suffers from many problems which I have stated numerous times above. Now, I used Plan 9 only to illustrate my point, not to belittle your position. I hope you understand that. I enjoyed your last post, and actually agree with it! Alas, I still hated the film. I hope you can respect that.
-
Go read your email. It took me over an hour to type my last post. Let me know if you wish to continue this here or via email...and throw the covers back over me when you're done. I can tell I am tired; I'm getting crude.__________A Bee going to bed now. And yes I do respect your not liking AI as you appear to respect the fact that I like it.
-
How did the Snuggles Bear land such a great role? Will he still sell toilet paper? Is he in some way related to that bear robot from Battlestar Gallactica?
-
Ok, its obvious most people who didn't like the ending didn't think about it much and just wrote it off as a "Spielberg happy" ending. I don't think this is the case at all. One of the main moral lessons to the movie was that love is not real, and people that pursue it are pursuing a dream (which is not real). The mother wanted a child that loved her no matter that it was just a machine. She was willing to overlook the fact that the boy was not real...she just wanted to be loved. In the end, David enters into what he knows is a dream (staged by the supermechas), and fulfills his "dream" of being loved,knowing it to be false love. It is at this point that he finally sleeps and dreams, something that only "real" boys can do. By persuing and fulfilling a dream, he has become as real as a human. There ya go!
-
Was this movie visually captivating? Yes. Was it a heartwarming tale of a boy-bot who loves his mom? No. David was simply following his program. He was not able to deviate from his prime task. David represented nothing more than a humanoid shell wrapped around a complex series of logic gates. Humans have the ability to completely put aside their biological programming. That's why we hurt the ones we love. That's why we love the ones who hurt us.
Gigolo Joe's dance was cool, though. -
This is my first post on this forum so bear with me. If I'm not too late to be read that is...
I went to see AI this past Saturday with my wife (a fellow amateur film critic and closet sci-fi junkie) and all in all the experience was OK, but we both left the theater feeling as though the film was not as good as it should have been.
Anyway... as I searched for the reasons behind my disappointment I began to come across a few things that I thought were not just wrong tonally or structurally, but just plainly not thought out.
First up is the bonding issue. Is it just me or does anyone else have a problem with the fact that the father in this film is completely ignored? I mean it does not take a genius to figure out that if anyone were to create such a robot to cater to childless couples they would not just completely omit one half of the parents involved. I find this to be a completely illogical step in the evolution of the plot. I mean its ridiculous to suggest that the bond of love that exists between child and parent MUST be solely expressed to the mother. Hello? Am I the only father who loves his sons? The film then goes on to make this glaring omission even more puzzling by showing us a scene in which the William Hurt character is sitting among pictures of his son (which happens to be who David is based on) feeling the absence of both the mechanical David and his own (presumably deceased?) son...And THIS is the man who on creating his ultimate contribution to childless society makes it adhere only to the love of the mother? BTW Last time I checked Speilberg had kids of his own....Why he would not reflect on his own feelings of paternity...I have no idea.
Next up....the Amphibacopter. Again, taking this thing to its logical conclusion...If you were to build such an item for police use in the far distant future would you just allow anyone to be able to jump in and take off in it? This piece of equipment is most likely expensive and armed to the teeth, yet apparently there are no safety features installed to prevent wanted criminals from jumping in and escaping the law! No retina scans. No fingerprint ID. No voiceprint match. NOTHING. Not even an old fashion passive alarm system. Just sit right in and... -
I find it really interesting and actually pretty humorous that someone who hates this movie is the one who is enlightened and someone like me is in total denial because I truly enjoyed this great story told by two of the most adept storytellers of our time. I was under the belief that everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion and that just because I feel a certain way about a movie doesnt mean I am mentally deficient nor does it mean I am easily duped. If you havent noticed, there are literally hundreds of movies released each year, as well as songs, albums, books, and cars among other things. Each is not designed to appeal to every type of person. With a few exceptions, each is specifically designed to cater to a specific audience. Which they generally do well. AI is no different. I am sure both Spielberg and Kubrick knew this movie would be both loved either hated. I happen to love the movie and that doesnt make me a mental deficient. Others hate it and that doesnt mean they were dropped on their head as a kid either. Sure a talkback is meant to exchange opinions, but to say I am in denial for holding to mine is rather childish. However free speech is a great thing, so say what you will, and so will I. Bring on the sequels.
-
Since you gave me a compliment about my first post, I read some of your earlier posts and wanted to give you my interpretations, since I loved the film and accepted a lot of the things you had problems with. I will ignore the questions that I answered in my first post.
(A) I got the feeling that Martin wasn -
It would have been a more compelling (and realistic?) film if the parents rejected the real boy because of bed-wetting, whining, and stuff of that nature. They'd prefer the saintly behavior of the mecha child. So the real son would getted dumped in the woods with Teddy and he'd become obsessed with wanting to be a robot, wanting to be perfect. Gigolo Joe and Teddy would be his mentors. With this scenario, we'd better understand why the robots are despised and considered such a threat. At the "Thunderdome" arena, they could have had a camera crew approaching people in the audience with the question: Why do you hate Mechas? Someone could say, "I lost my job to one of those alloy bastards." A woman could say, "My fiance dumped me for a mecha 'cause he didn't want to be hitched to someone who would eventually become old and ugly." Anyway, those are my revisionist fantasies for the day.
-
It would have been a more compelling (and realistic?) film if the parents rejected the real boy because of bed-wetting, whining, and stuff of that nature. They'd prefer the saintly behavior of the mecha child. So the real son would getted dumped in the woods with Teddy and he'd become obsessed with wanting to be a robot, wanting to be perfect. Gigolo Joe and Teddy would be his mentors. With this scenario, we'd better understand why the robots are despised and considered such a threat. At the "Thunderdome" arena, they could have had a camera crew approaching people in the audience with the question: Why do you hate Mechas? Someone could say, "I lost my job to one of those alloy bastards." A woman could say, "My fiance dumped me for a mecha 'cause he didn't want to be hitched to someone who would eventually become old and ugly." Anyway, those are my revisionist fantasies for the day.
-
My Brain is falling out.
All the mixed reviews, mixed reaction, mixed talkback, and I feel just like David, lost. But unlike David I know I am human, and I know that y overall reaction for this film has bben of the utmost respect. Here's why. I have always heard of the term "minless entertainment", and now I finally see the contrast:
- " -
This film has everyone talking. Many don't like it. Many do like it. All in all, everyone takes this film very personal, and that's what matters. A.I. technically is amazing. And even if you may not like the subject matter or ending, it is a marvel in film making. This is one of Spielberg's most daring films and I highly praise him for it. Everyone takes something a little different away from this film. How many films have that effect on such a large group. When I first saw this film, I wasn't too sure I liked it. But given some time, I now belive it is a classic. Kubrick is smiling.
-
:
- The Fast and the Furious: mindless entertainment that will last no longer in the memories of all you talkbackers, even the bashers of A.I., for more than a few weeks, if that
- A.I.:
a controversial, split, hollywood/artsy, contradicting, emotional, forceful, layered, personal, selfish, multi-interpreted, confusing, simple, everlasting, classic, letdown, different, box-office failure, dangerous, misunderstood, and good for cinema sci-fi story of a film.
And how would I describe the latter film mentioned, pretty to look at, there.
in my first viewing of A.I, I just didn't get it, but I sensed that there was something there that I was missing, that there was a reason to love it. But even on first viweing I liked the characters (Gigalo Joe, downright entertaing and admirable, and he was a freakin mecha). Dialouge, "They made us too smart, too quick, too many." "when everything is gone we will be the only ones left," and the look in his eyes as he tells David all this (and he's a freakin mecha). And yes the ending upon initial viewing was like taking medicine by the spoon. But after all this talkback reading I can understand so much more. This mere fact that we can talk forever upon this film is enough to prove ita a timeless classic to be. For me, as a 18yr old film lover, this may be my 2001, for in twenty years I will be forcing all my children to watch A.I. no matter how boring it seems to them. Oh yeah, and the mere fact I payed $21 to see this film three times is enough for me to realize I respect this film beyond "mindless entertainment". It's like classical music, some people see the genuis behing Beethoven, etc, and some just want there Kreed. I prefer both, but Kreed wont be around in twenty years, and if thats what counts, then whats the argument? -
TallScott previously mentioned noticing a lot of right wing propaganda against this film. I would be surprised in retrospect if there weren't a lot of right wing propaganda against this film. Any dogmatically religious person is going to have to have a lot of problems with the ideas that a) a god-given soul is not necessary to achieve a level of humanity b) in creating androids humans could potentially create a more perfect intelligent life-form(at least, a more survivable one). I mean, to suggest that humans are merely a step in the evolution toward artificial intelligence is to pretty much attack the fundamental outlook of most traditional religions. . . My personal opinion is that a lot of people who did not like the movie because of what are esentially religious issues (it's a heretical movie) have hidden their reactions behind secondary criticisms. I know of one acquaintance who said they did not like the last part of the movie because it was too fairytale-like, but when pressed, it turned out that what they really felt was that the last part of the movie was too unbelievable because robots could not have souls, etc. That said, I think this will turn out to be a truly great movie. I usually require a five year waiting period, but for the moment, it's in my top 5 movies of all time list. And to be a really great movie, it, of course, has to be hated by a significant minority.
-
Jul 13, 2001 11:04:11 PM CDT
Harry should be flogged for mentioning Tim "suck's ass" Burton i
by jmyoda
I mean Burton totally went to shit. With "Sleepy Hollow" I thought maybe he would return to his pre-Batman ways but now behold the pile of stinking shit that is to be "Planet of the Apes". People try to say Spielberg robbed Kubrick's grave but that's bull shit. Kubrick asked Spielberg to do the film long before he died. However Tim Burton is taking a big smelly dump on the grave of Franklin J. Schaffner. Schaffner created a sci-fi masterpiece with a brilliant social subtext. Burton is doing Braveheart with apes including salon hair and make-up wearing female apes and swimsuit model humans with college-level diction. Bah. If that's the kind of shit Harry prefers over an intelligent thining-man's sci-fi film like A.I. He should stop pretending he's the champion of artful films and go play in the sandbox with all the other dead-brain fanboys.
-
Jul 14, 2001 8:16:15 PM CDT
Sad, very Sad. See Blade Runner for all AI promises and more.
by synarch
I had to watch Blade Runner 10 times to get that AI crap out of my system.
-
absolutely. When we say the sky is blue, we are taking a guess, and to establish it as a fact we must convince ourselves that others will come to the same conclusion independently. For sake of discussion we imagine that a person doesn't accept the statement because in its opinion it is too vague (eg. the person might respond, what do you mean by the sky or the color blue? Or, what are you jabbering about?--I don't even speak English. Or, huh?--I've been blind since birth). If we respect this person, then we must appease it, for otherwise our fact would lose its universality. We ignore those whose opinion we do not respect (for whatever reason) and try our best to win over as many of the others as possible. We then believe we have succeeded. But what if some person whom we have not yet encountered raises an objection which we have not yet thought of? Do we simply prepare to disrespect such people? I think there have been people who have done just that, and result has been fighting and anger. To prevent this scenario we can abandon the absoluteness of our conviction that the sky is blue. Similarly, when watching a movie a person raises questions and wishes for the answers spelled out explicitly, at best it hopes for the movie to appease it on its particular terms. But its particular terms are founded upon its particular beliefs, culture, language, and method of parsing through its experiences. I think it is unrealistic to expect a movie to appease everyone, and of those left out, you who is unique may well be one. If a person treats the movie as a mysterious artifact, then it would try to make sense of what it found interesting about the artifact. It would welcome all possible explanations and their interrelationships, for one, some, or all of them could be defined as the correct one. Some people find this activity fun, which justifies watching AI for them. They have no need to ask whether AI is a bad movie or not.
-
I'm gonna keep this short since it's likely that no one is reading this by now. I just saw A.I.; and for the most part loved it. The only quibble I had was with the voice-over narration. Film is a *visual* medium--show, don't tell. The ending was shamelessly tear-jerking, but worked O.K. All in all, a good, semi-dark science-fiction fairy tale that makes a wonderful antidote to the typical Hollywood crap we've suffered through these past few years. I may give it another go on a larger screen later. Oh, and Harry--Rouge City was "family friendly?" Only if your family consists of Marilyn Manson and Hugeh Hefner.
-
If you go to see A.I. expecting to be beat over the head with an emotion like spielberg is capable of, you won't like it..or at the very least be disappointed. Though I didn't "dislike" the ending as much as Knowles or many other reviewers, it still would have been more powerful to stop at the next ice-age. Still, if one keeps in mind that he is a robot, the ending is still cold and lonely. Even though they weren't "aliens", I can never view a film with "E.T."'s in it as something less than hokey or corny to an extent. HJO was outstanding and portrays a haunting figure in a lot of scenes, which is what you'll enjoy if that's why you go to see it. Intelligent, dark, and a step or two below a four-star effort.
-
Jul 17, 2001 8:16:16 AM CDT
Speilberg does Joel Schumacher doing Speilberg doing Kubrick
by riskebiz
Beyond everything else that was horrible in this movie's script that are too numerous to mention, what was the worst was anything related to the the Flesh Fair. Those motorcyclists and every stupid visual and idea about that section looked like Joel Schumacher was directing. I groaned when those motorcycles started chasing them through the woods and the movie went right out the window from there. What a depressing movie in every respect.
-
It would have been a more compelling (and realistic?) film if the parents rejected the real boy because of bed-wetting, whining, and stuff of that nature. They'd prefer the saintly behavior of the mecha child. So the real son would getted dumped in the woods with Teddy and the boy would become obsessed with wanting to be a robot, wanting to be perfect. Gigolo Joe and Teddy would be his mentors. With this scenario, we'd better understand why the robots are despised and considered such a threat. At the Flesh Fair, they could have had a camera crew approaching people in the audience with the question: Why do you hate Mechas? Someone could say, "I lost my job to one of those alloy bastards." A woman could say, "My fiance dumped me for a mecha 'cause he didn't want to be hitched to someone who would eventually become old and ugly." Anyway, those are my revisionist fantasies for the day.
-
Pain is an emotion. While this is true, physical pain is not an emotion. It's inflicted very logically, something hurts the human, the information is then sent by the nerves and delivered directly to the brain. Nothing emotional about that. If you get pricked, it hurts. That's pain. That requires no emotion. You can then EMOTE a feeling of pain, but the actual pain itself is just a predescribed feeling. Now, emotional pain is a very different beast. It can be felt without actually being "Felt." I'm new to talkback and I realize that I didn't add much to the A.I. debate, but I had to respond to Timmer's 9th objection to the film.
-
Jul 18, 2001 10:43:27 AM CDT
the ending they went with seems like something very Kubrick-ish
by kurt
Everybody says the ending should have been David at the bottom of the ocean, and at first I agreed. The more I thought about it, though, the more I liked the actual ending. I think it's very Kubrick-like in that the human race had ended and the evolved mechas, trying to grant Davids wish as best they could, were more humane than the people were.
Also, it really may be sadder than if he had stayed in the ocean. Like Harry said, that ending left hope. This one doesn't. He had one perfect day. That was it. Yes, David would always have the memories of that day, but for the rest of eternity, he would be alone, knowing what he had that once, but would never have again. -
Go here for my first stab at reading this brilliant film.
-
Harry I am glad you got what you wanted to be with your father. Your 'A.I.' review left me wondering about the missing details of your story. How did you finally end up with your father?
-
Jul 19, 2001 8:05:16 PM CDT
Cold, cruel, perplexing...yep, it's a Kubrick! & still awesome
by petros000
Like many I was all set to hate the post-ferris wheel ending but...the talkbacker (Drath?) who interpreted the ending as the robots and humans changing places, David now using his "Mommy" as a robot to fill _his_ emotional needs just as she used him to fill hers seems astonishingly fulfilling to me. I may just have to see it again on that basis. (I could've done w/o the narration though. More like '2001', but then the average moviegoer would have been even MORE perplexed!)
I also feel that the humans in the story were more robotic and empty than the mechs. Christ, there wasn't a single human in the damn film that I felt even deserved to LIVE. Calculating mad-scientist...emotionally distant corporate-tool 'father'...snotty crippled 'brother'.... self-absorbed 'mommy'...what bugged me was how the 43rd(?)-century mechs seemed to revere humans. When I first saw them I thought, 'finally, intelligent life has evolved on Earth' -- one would expect them to regard their extinct human creators like we regard Neanderthals or maybe even cockroaches. Humans destroyed the world, created mech slaves to serve their selfish needs, then tried to destroy them too. The best thing they could have done for David was a) erase that useless, painful mother-implant (he never needed her for survival) and b) give him a shiny new body like theirs. End with the new David flying off with his highly evolved brethren to explore and redeem the earth. -
Bubbeleh, don't call people you don't personally know by their first names. Vat's dis "Steven" and "Stanley" crap-ola? Makes me vant to plotz!
-
A Sad commentary on what the future could possibly bring. The one word I would use to describe the premise of the movie is " DISTURBING " One clever twist in the movie was the use of the alien beings to do the impossible, since that is what alien beings supposedly do, the impossible. I left the movie depressed and sad, so I guess the writer accomplished his sick purpose. Sick in SC
-
A Sad commentary on what the future could possibly bring. The one word I would use to describe the premise of the movie is " DISTURBING " One clever twist in the movie was the use of the alien beings to do the impossible, since that is what alien beings supposedly do, the impossible. I left the movie depressed and sad, so I guess the writer accomplished his sick purpose. Sick in SC
-
HARRY! C'mon, weren't you watchin'
the same film as me? Monica's leaving David in the forest, rather than take him back to Cybertronics for certain 'death'
(at least in her eyes) was as great an act of love than any. She would rather give him the chance to have some semblace of a life than to selfishly kill him.
(An advocate of 'pro-life', perhaps?) The future meccas NEVER ONCE impliied that they 'programed' Monica, or ANY 'ressurectees', for that matter. I do believe that when they scanned David's thoughts, they knew that Monica, because of her past behavior towards him, and the fact that both David and Monica could now at last completley focus on one another, would at last tell him that she loved him. Anyway THIS FILM KICKS
COMPLETE CEREBRAL AND EMOTIONAL ASS. -
HARRY! C'mon, weren't you watchin'
the same film as me? Monica's leaving David in the forest, rather than take him back to Cybertronics for certain 'death'
(at least in her eyes) was as great an act of love than any. She would rather give him the chance to have some semblace of a life than to selfishly kill him.
(An advocate of 'pro-life', perhaps?) The future meccas NEVER ONCE impliied that they 'programed' Monica, or ANY 'ressurectees', for that matter. I do believe that when they scanned David's thoughts, they knew that Monica, because of her past behavior towards him, and the fact that both David and Monica could now at last completley focus on one another, would at last tell him that she loved him. Anyway THIS FILM KICKS
COMPLETE CEREBRAL AND EMOTIONAL ASS. -
It's good to assume that everything in a movie is in there for a reason, but we must be careful not to over-analyze everything. Thus, the light in the room next door may not mean anything, and I would not try to come up with all sorts of complicated motivation for the beings who appear at the end.
-
WATER EXPANDS WHEN IT FREEZES!!
-
Jul 30, 2001 10:41:10 PM CDT
The real problem with the ending... WATER EXPANDS WHEN IT FREEZ
by kvonnah
-
Aug 01, 2001 9:47:11 AM CDT
"They don't look like aliens", alright, tell us what aliens look
by sopranofella
Sheesh, of all the stupid things to talk about.
-
I respect Harry and his accomplishments. I
-
I do like the suggestion that the movie end with a frozen earth and the narrative regarding the last sentient being on earth, an artificial boy praying to an artifice...etc.
However, there is something to be said for the ubermecha ending. It does, to its credit, remind us that our playthings and our handiwork may be all that survives us. Such beings could be somewhat fixated on the nature of their lost creators - perhaps in a way similar to the boy's fixation on his mother.
Mankind servives in an odd way. So in one sense the ending manages to be neither happy nor sad.
Nevertheless, it would have been better if the ubermechas had, rather than trying to complete the boy's preprogramed fantasy, reprogramed the boy in such a way as to make it/him more fully sentient - capable of forumlating his own dreams. Here the boy would not get his immediate desire but would obtain something more important - automony (oddly enough by way of evolved automatons).
Then he might understand that, ironically, he was a real boy - but that the task is to become aware of the fact that this aint no reality at all - that sentient life finds itself in going beyond itself, since sentient existence is not what it is and is what it is not.
-
Aug 05, 2001 11:21:57 AM CDT
Ive seen this movie before, it was called DARYL, and it was actu
by johngannon
This movie was too sappy. Forget the fact that Haley cant act his way out of a paper bag. Stale lines like "I am, I was" (as Jigolo Joe got hoisted away) actually made the entire audience giggle in the theatre I was in. THe ending was so laughably bad, people started to walk out before it was over. The 'aliens' ship was the single poorest rendered ship Ive seen outside my feeble 3D Studio attempts. Spielburg has gone the way of the Lucas, churning out typical Hollywood tripe.
johngannon -
It feels strange to be here on Earth... the "homeworld." We've set up camp and started excavating the ruins we've found- ruins thousands of years old. An entire civilization, buried for centuries. There are dwellings- crude, but no doubt servicable- and machines the likes of which we've never seen. It'll take some time to determine their purpose.
Good news: we've managed to get some of the discs translated. There are images, too. Apparently, the ancients believed in magic! They wrote of it and recorded imaginary tales replete with images and sounds. This is the first indication we've had that the Ancients were aware of the True Nature of Things. It's a promising beginning to the exploration of a culture long extinct. -
First off: I love Teddy.. That said, This movie was splendid. I especially LOVED the ending.. absolutely INCREDIBLE!! This film is true genius; entertaining from start to the great ending.
The best movie I've seen in a long time.. the best movie of the year so far easy... don't miss it!! Thanks Spielberg/Kubrick... this was a tribute to both of you! I was a little suprised that Spielberg didn't have a "IN MEMORY OF STANLEY" in front of the film (or at the end for that matter) unless I missed it. Anyhow.. this movie was GREAT!! IF you are looking for a shallow popcorn movie.. stay away from A.I. .. A.I is for thinking people. Lots of ethical issues here... enjoy -
It really sucks.
I mean where were the guts in that. Having showed the selfishness that humans can act with and the torture that we can inflict (like pouring acid over things just isnt nice now is it) this clearly was not meant to be aimed at your average kid. So why, I wonder was such an ending tacked on.
What a shame. -
I am a bit confused about many things but one in this film is:
If mother dumping david in the forest is meant to represent Adam nad eve being exiled from Eden this surely portays mother as God. Indeed after his stay in Purgatory (underwater for 200 years) he seems to met angels and then ultimatly god in the form of Mother. We are to assume that David has reached heaven.
But this reading feels very incomplete to me since it does not allow a position for the robots inventor. Surely he would have been the ultimate creator? Any ideas? This seems to be a mixed image.
All said and done this film was better than crocodile which i just watched on HBO...
-
Well, first of all, I'm mexican and we're emotional people so, don't judge me so hard, o.k.?? I found I.A. amusing, it's true that it remained me of some sort of E.T./Pinochio/Blade Runner/ mix, but, you can't deny that the plot is great, and that kid it's a terrific actor (he made me run to tears just to watch at the expression of his sweet face). I agree about, well let's face it people, if Kubrik were alive by the time the film was made, phew!! that could be so different (even more bizarre and tragic, I think) I'm sure we'd never heard about the Blue fairy in the first place (ja, ja). How may be that movie in Kubrik's hands??? unfortunately, we'll never know... but I stand for Spielberg version anyway.. as I told you, I've cried my eyes out during the whole film (and my mommy is still with me, I'm so happy for that) Steven S. has the magic touch to find immediately our most sensitive fibers and we love that bastard for that!! Finnally, that's the reason why we go to the theatres, to get touched, scared or amazed (hey buddies, if you are loking for real stuff, go and turn on your damned t.v's and watch the news every night!!) In my particular opinion, it's a very singular film and I'm sure it'll become a clasic pretty soon (sorry for the bunch of bitter people who hated it) Your Friend, Marcela.
-
Bullshit. Denial. misuse of technology. The movie sucked, anyway.
-
Sep 25, 2001 4:58:22 AM CDT
AI - a flawed masterpiece. Harry was right about Burton handling
by darthflagg
Watch Edward Scissorhands. Burton knows exactly how to end a dark fairytale, while still giving the audience an emotional uplift. Spielberg doesn't, but it was still a great film up to that point.
-
I understand what Brian Aldiss said about people not understanding this movie. Myself was not so sure whether it was good or not when I first saw it. Second, though, was different. I honestly think this is a master piece and the best of Spielberg's work. I don't think is an easy movie to see. Therefore I understand why so many people didn't enjoy the movie: they were looking for the typical summer blockbuster movie with a little bit more of "quality", perhaps. But they were not ready to face this overwhelming effort. this is a masterpiece, no doubt.
Period. -
Let me start by saying I'm replying only now, because the film only opened here in South Africa last week.
For now, I'm simply addressing some questions that were posed. A more in-depth ananlysis of the film on my part will follow later. It's taking a bit longer for me to talk about the film than I thought it would.
One: If teddy had a whole bunch of David's mother's hair, why could the aliens only create her once???
- Like someone explained earlier, this is just something they said to David in order to dissuade him from his decision to get his mother back. They did not actually think that he would have some of her DNA
Two: Why in the hell did the company give David to a family whose own child was frozen and might be woken at any time???
- It is stated by the doctor that the boy may be beyond science. It is also stated that the parents are grieving. It is not obvious that he might awaken at any moment, it is in fact inconceivable (and these inconceivable things happen from time to time, we call them miracles.)
Three: What kind of programmer would create a robot that could grab on to a kid and pull him underwater and drown him???
- Obviously this wasn't programmed. David did what he did out of fear and they accidentally fell into the water. Humans act irrationally all the time, why not AI's as well -
This is a tremendous film and I have to argue with anybody who says the ending is a happy one. You see all they have done is closed down his fake Love programme with a fake mom. You can have all the schmaltsy music and fairy tale talk-over that you like at the end of the film but I would prefer to regard that as irony. I felt immense sympathy and empathy for this poor man-made stunted little creature and , like minority report, spent days afterwards reflecting on this film. It is evidence that Speilberg continues to grow and grow. On another side I may be like a lot of people .. I like my popcorn rollercoaster style movies and when I am in the mood I like my intelligent ones. Because invariably the more intellectual films don't have the high octane emotions involved of say Indiana Jones they do get underrated. You need to look at these films differently to properly assess them..anyway I give AI 9.5/10.
Readers Talkback
User Login
Top Talkbacks
- A hot redhead (not Harry) is set to play lead in Fede Alvarez's remake of EVIL DEAD! -- 170 total posts 170 posts
- The Friday Docback Spelunks 'The Caves Of Androzani'!! DOCTOR WHO Story #136, And More!! -- 103 total posts 86 posts
- Here Comes THE GODMOTHER! -- 74 total posts 74 posts
- Rest In Peace Ben Gazzara -- 68 total posts 68 posts
- UPDATED: Talkbacker Bob Orci tweets STAR TREK old set pics! -- 244 total posts 51 posts
- ABC Has Cast The Lead In Its Future Nuclear Nation Pilot!! And They’ve Chosen Wisely!! -- 44 total posts 44 posts
- RIDDICK Sequel Details Via A New Press Release!! -- 88 total posts 40 posts
- AWAKE, This Season’s Best Broadcast Pilot, Gets NBC’s Old ER Slot March 1!! THE FIRM To Burn Off On Saturdays!! -- 38 total posts 38 posts
- INSIDIOUS-ER? -- 120 total posts 31 posts
- The Behind the Scenes Pic of the Day is going on an overnight drunk and in 10 days it’s going to set out to find the shark that ate its friend and destroy it. -- 31 total posts 31 posts