Saw it. I appreciated it. I'm not sure how much I actually "enjoyed" it. I thought the biggest problem with it was how *awkward* it was. I thought it really showed the effects of being directed by someone who... well, wasn't Stanley Kubric. That's not a knock against Spielburg - he's just not a director that normally creates melancholy dreamscapes, which AI certainly was. The movie did affect me emotionally, so to that extent it was a success. And in a summer full of godawful busts, AI stood out in that respect. Did you really feel absolutely no emotional stake in the child? I did. The kid (forget his name) is an excellent actor and his situation was pitiable. I did feel the lack of dialgoue. And I'm unconvinced that dialogue just "covers up" plot failures. Depends on the type of movie, imo... Shakespeare in Love, for example, was an excellent movie that depended ENTIRELY on its dialogue. I thought that the ethical implications were interesting, but impossible to resolve. Such is going to happen in the future - we're already developing "learning" AI's. I had a physics/mathematics professor who though we were probably only about 30-40 years from sentient algorithms. Maybe even less, if there's a breakthrough. So it was relevant. ------------------ Clutchcity.net... source for all your Rockets, Astros, political, music, humor, and Gordita news.
I just saw it -- don't know what I think . . . more later ------------------ CC.net's most courteous driver Oh yeah, and I'm looking for a job right now, so hire me please
I have heard this movie compared to 2001 for obvious reasons, but the film that in my opinion this one is very similar to is "Bicentennial Man" with Robin Williams. Same build up, same misconceptions. I remember leading up to that movie it was played up as a typical Robin Williams film in marketing and a lot of parents rushed to take their kids and found out that it was very much an adult film. I actually heard parents who thought that this movie might be similar to "ET" with the whole Spielberg warm and fuzzy vibe. Funny thing is, Spielberg attempts to inject a bit of that.... For me this had some brilliant visuals and some great preformances (Osment is just an amazing actor) but a flawed plot. Major letdown ------------------ [This message has been edited by stringthing (edited July 01, 2001).]
i had to throw in my take before this topic faded to oblivion. i can see why people would dislike it, but i was won over by the beautiful, imaginative, manner in which they presented the future. New York, underwater, amazing. The robots were beautiful. i mean i can see the absurdity of jude law and a teddy bear running around a forest chased by motorcycles with dog heads... but you look past some of the silliness and you find a movie with a deep metaphysical meaning. it was one of the best movies ive seen this year.. ------------------ Paranoid, trying to stuff the void.
One of the real problems for me was that Spielberg seemed to be trying to shoot it like Kubrick would have.While Steven is one of the best,I think he let his realtionship with Stanley cloud his judgement.Kubrick had such a dark side to him,which is reflected in his films.The special eye of the photographer he was before really lends itself to beautiful cinematography.Sound is utilized nicely.....Steven has so many strengths...The thing is,this doesn't play into them...dark,austere settings,sterile worlds of still life and art.....that is Kubrick's genre...Steven IMO is the greatest action director of all time and can do quite a bit on top of that,but this was a flick which required Kubrick's eye and instincts.The acting was dead on,but the script is lacking,and the movie can't be saved by SS.Stanley should have made this film back in the late sixties or early seventies rather than giving it to his talented buddy. ------------------ Everybody has a little bit of Watergate in em - Billy Graham [This message has been edited by hardwood (edited July 03, 2001).]
Sucked, Sucked, Sucked. It failed to answer any moral questions and further failed to entertain stictly on the basis of a moviegoing experience. Three worthy things about this movie: 1) The Teddy Bear, of course 2) Jude Law's acting 3) The Space ship thing in the end Everything else just SUCKED. Movies Im going to see this summer that I hope dont suck this much: - Planet of the Apes - Scary Movie 2 - American Pie 2 - Rush Hour 2 Im sure there are others, but I hope Im not as dissapointed by any of them as i was by AI ------------------ I hope, when they die, cartoon characters have to answer for their sins.
It failed to answer any moral questions That's actually one of the interesting things about this movie. If the boy was human, most people would have felt empathy for him. However, given that he was a robot, lots of people didn't seem as emotionally attached to the movie. That goes to the whole point of the movie -- can humans have feelings for robots? ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
Well, it's taken me a while to figure out what I think about this movie. I saw it on Sunday, and I've been thinking about it an awful lot since. As far as the directing goes, and the Kubrick, Spielberg stuff, I can't say I know enough about filmmaking, directing and such to provide any meaningful commentary about that. The acting was GREAT! I am a big Haley Osment fan, and he was incredible in this movie. I really think this kid has the stuff to become the greatest actor ever. I mean, if he's this good at his young age, imagine how great he'll be at 20 or 30. A lot of times great child actors don't pan out, but Haley has the potential of Eddie Griffin, Steve Francis, Tyson Chandler and Kwame Brown all rolled into one, but in an acting sense of course . Jude Law did very well. I'm not very familiar with him, but I really, really loved his character. He brought a lot of life to it, and he was great! I think that everyone was great in this movie. The mother did very well, so did the child (I don't remember names well). I didn't like the father too much though, but I just didn't like his character. The music in the movie was AWESOME as well. Ranks up there as one of the best musical scores I've ever heard. Alright, now down to the movie itself. I have been in strong anticipation of this movie for months now. The concept was great, in my opinion, and I LOVED the storyline. When I heard Osment was in the movie, I resolved myself to see it opening weekend. A few weeks before it came out, I'd heard that it was the greatest movie ever from all kinds of critics, and people who got early viewing priviledges. I was STOKED! Then, on Friday, I saw that most people online didn't like it much. I was very, very worried. A.I. did not disappoint. Throughout the movie, I was torn. I am reminded of two movies -- "Beloved", and "Platoon". Beloved is the worst movie I've ever seen. I HATED IT! But the movie was such that despite how much I hated it, I couldn't stop watching it. I was mesmerized, and couldn't turn away, yet I didn't want to watch it. Platoon is one of my favorite movies of all time. Yet I find it so powerful, so significant that I can only watch it once every 3 to 6 months. It is a movie that deeply affects me. A.I. had an interesting combination of these. In A.I., I found myself unable to look away, yet I felt a similar kind of loathing -- not for the story or movie itself, but rather for the whole situation. I really felt like I didn't want to watch, yet I couldn't stop myself. I was overwhelmed, in the same way that I often am by Platoon. The movie captivated me, and I felt deeply moved. After much thought, I feel this movie was incredible. Yet, it had many drawbacks. I can understand where people say it moved too slowly. I'd rather say that it moved ackwardly, rather than slowly, mostly at the beginning. For the first hour of the movie, monumental events were everywhere, but they seemed to be in such a "herky-jerky" fashion, with lots of anticipation, and then they would rush through something important. Characters' motivations were often never uncovered, and dialogue was sparse, and badly constructed. However, I feel this was only the case for the first hour or so. After David is left in the woods, I feel the movie itself makes a drastic turn. The whole story becomes more engrossing, dialogue gets better, and characters are more interesting. From the beginning (lecture hall) to the forest scene, I thought the movie's conversations were fairly bad, and things happened in such a rough, unorganized fashion. The rest of the movie moved very well though. I really think Jude Law's character was a big part of that -- he was such a cool charcter, that just his mere presence made things more entertaining. Despite the ending's oddness, I think it turned out okay. I think the ending was mediocre, with kindof lame dialogue, but it was okay. It wrapped up the story in an interesting, kindof unexpected way. This movie is not for most people. It's not the kind of movie I would recommend to anyone I know. I don't think it's very entertaining, and it's not the kindof movie you go see for fun. I found it to be very little fun. Rather, it is very, very deep. I think that if you are into those very weird, very psychological, abstract movies then you will appreciate it. For instance, if you liked the movie "Pi", I think you might like this. Otherwise, I don't think I'd see it if I were you. It's a movie with a GREAT concept, a GREAT story, and GREAT acting. But it's not for everyone. It's not for MOST people. It conjures up many feelings, and many thoughts, and most of them are depressing. This is the kind of movie the critics love, but audiences hate. I don't think most people will like this movie, and I don't think it's particularly entertaining in the traditional sense. But if you're ambitious, and you're willing to really give it a shot, go for it. Go with an open mind. Read about the movie and characters beforehand (I *know* I wouldn't have appreciated it as much if I were unfamiliar with it before). Take some friends, go see it, then go discuss the abstract concepts at IHOP afterwards. Order coffee, and ask the waitress for a Chocolate Smiley-face Pancake off the children's menu. Then visciously cut it up into yummy bites of chocolate and whipped cream!! Final Prognosis: I feel this movie is one of the best I've ever seen. I will go see it again soon. It's not for most people, but if you're into these abstract things, you may really love it. This is not an entertainment-type movie, but a thinking and feeling-type movie. ------------------ CC.net's most courteous driver Oh yeah, and I'm looking for a job right now, so hire me please
You know, I saw this movie this morning, and I was not really sure how I felt about it until I read this thread just now. At first I felt like I hated the movie. Like others have mentioned, it brings up moral questions that really don't get answered. But as shanna said, I didn't really feel badly for the Haley Joel Osment character. In the back of my mind, I knew he was a robot acting human. Like others, I wanted the cool bear to survive more than anything. But the fact that I didn't care what happened to the David character, in a way, is the point of the movie. In that sense, the movie answers the "Can a human love a robot?" question dynamically, with each movie goer, as long as they realize that they themselves answered the question through the movie. (Hope that made sense, it did in my head, but I am not the greatest at transferring these things to print). As for the lack of dialogue, I did not feel it was lacking. What was there, spoke volumes, and when you have great actors like Osment and Jude Law (who has now catapulted himself parallel to Edward Norton as my favorite underrated actors in Hollywood), you can afford to skimp on dialogue, and rely on their skill (which is what you paid them for ). The scene where David asks, "Is 50 years a long time?" Then Teddy stares and responds, "I don't think so." That alone told me so much about the future they lived in, and it was 2 short lines! I love it when movies can do that. I did, however, feel the ending was tacked on. As sad as the ending would have been <u>(***SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER***)</u>, I would have been happy if the movie had simply ended with David trapped under the ice, staring at a frozen statue for eternity. We don't get what we want, and the that is life. It seems like a good Kubrick moral to me. But, also true to Kubrick's style, the movie had to end on one of his classic quasi-happy notes that, like it did with me, make you wonder how you felt about that movie. It just seemed like Kubrick/Spielberg (not sure who is responsible for what...I know Kubrick wrote the original screenplay, but I heard SS rewrote it) didn't want the movie to end on as sad a note as David's whole journey being fruitless (happily or sadly), so he/they, like others before him/them, decided Let's Bring in Aliens! This way, we can make anything we want possible, and David can end on his semi-happy note where he gets what he wants, but at a price. I felt that was forced, and didn't work. <u>(END SPOILER)</u> Otherwise, I loved the world and future Spielberg created. The Flesh Fair scene was particularly telling, and true to real life, I felt. Visually, it was all beautiful. All in all, I would have to say that it was a good movie going experience, though it took more heavy thought than I am accustomed to come to that conclusion. I enjoyed it, but for reasons I had not expected... (Planet of the Apes will still be better ). ------------------ I would rather have Mo Taylor and his love of the Rockets than Webber and his love of our money. Rocket's need power forward. Mo near now. Go near Mo. [This message has been edited by RunninRaven (edited July 04, 2001).]
The way that Spielberg could've made this film better, would've been to make the viewer feel sympathy for the robots. At no point did they actually accomplish that. The closest they came was when the mother dropped David off in the woods. None of the robots fought back at all. They tried running during the one sequence, but when caught, they accepted their fate without any resistance. The perfect example would be when Jude was found in New york by the police & made no attempt to escape. Jude made the comment that people were afraid of the robots & were trying to control their numbers. At no point did I ever feel a threat from the robots. I'll always pull for the underdog, but all I ever felt for the robots was, that they were inanimate objects. In summation: A.I. SUCKS! This, however, is just my opinion. "Kiss of the Dragon" with Jet Li & Bridget Fonda, should have plenty of action for my tastes. Jet Li is incredible with his martial arts. ------------------ Nothing is impossible, if you believe it's possible.
I kind of thought that was one of the points, though: the robots were, at least in the action-movie sense, harmless. Yet humans had grown a certain degree of contempt for them because they realize what they had created. It's like the Law character says: "...because in the end, we'll be all that's left." (Or something like that.) All they knew was to serve whatever program they were created for. And humans, of course, resented them even for that. Mix that in with our love of violence...and boom, Flesh Fair. BUT...everybody likes kids!! So little David lives. I guess that's why I liked the first two hours and not the ending...because it was so complex and thoughtful, and I knew the ending wouldn't live up. I mean think about it: in the beginning, when the family first got David, didn't it just feel creepy? Without any big dialogue or action scenes. And I have to give Spielberg credit here...that sensation is very Kubrick-like. Anyhow, I'm also looking forward to a lot of the other movies mentioned in this thread. I love thoughtful flicks, summer eye-candy and stupid humor on the same level. Rok ------------------ "Do you know what nemesis means? 'A righteous infliction of retribution manifested by an appropriate agent'. Personified, in this case, by a horrible c***: ME." - Brick Top, Snatch
Gah! Connection freaked. Double post. Damn robots. [This message has been edited by Rokkit (edited July 04, 2001).]
This is one of my favorite movies of all time. 1.Braveheart 2.A Clockwork Orange 3.Fight Club 4.AI 5.Friends I have to say that Stanley Kubrick is my favorite director. I was listening to 610am morning show and they had that football guy on.(forgot name?) He said he hated him as a director. i thought it was funny because he was one of the redneck Cowboy fans (like my father) that don't really like movies that make you think. Well I am rambling so shoot me.
Did anybody else notice how the mom changed from an English accent to none at all every once in awhile? I can't add anything else to the current debate about the movie but I liked it. I also really agree with the point about the moral question being answered by the individual theatergoer rather than Spielberg himself. ------------------ "I don't want to join a club that accepts people like me as members."
As far as I know, no one has built an android, so how exactly is this moral question relevant to our times? And I don't see us building an android relatively soon either. I don't think the connection between android and clone is a valid one. The only similarity I see between the two, is that they are both commodities who would serve a distinct purpose in society. Their status would always be determined for them, which in a way does make the whole "humans killing mechas to control their numbers" seem illogical. A clone is far and away more complex than an android could ever be, and I see them as two completely separate groups with distinguishable characteristics. ------------------ The Smurfs were Communists
Great acting, plot and a good story. Unfortunately it greatly lacks in the one most important category...entertainment. The movie gets boring. this movie gets one basketball down from me ------------------
Hit the nail on the head. Glad to know I wasnt the only one who thought the mother was the worst actress ever. She was horrible. I also find Osment to be very bad. The kid doesnt know how to act without wispering. ------------------ I hope, when they die, cartoon characters have to answer for their sins.
I think there's a lot more to the moral question -- I think that when you look at it on the surface, the question "can we ever love a robot?" is kindof insignificant. Just like TPL says, we have no androids here (although I love my computer ). Rather, I feel this movie makes more commentary on our culture of instant gratification without regard to consequences. It seems to illustrate the concept that we think we have all these great ideas, and that we want to do all of these things "for humanity". Instead, is it partially that we get on this ego trip, and say "if we almighty beings think we can do it, then we should"? We see that the creator of the robot modeled it after his son, who was dead. But it didn't bring his son back, it may have created a temporal euphoria, but his son was still gone, and no robot, no fake entity could change that. We place such a value on instant gratification, in our gin and tonic age of consumerism. David was a representative of our consumer culture -- when we see the boxes of him in the studio, and the dozens of clones, we witness the typical consumer attempt to sell the greatest thing of all -- Love. And yet, it is so cheapened. When the people tire of the robots, when their whim has changed, they can just return David to the company for destruction. But it's not that simple, is it? They never thought about the consquences, only about "doing this in the intrest of science". We tend to feel justification in saying "we're doing it for science". But is that really justification? I know there are tons of issues I've kindof thrown together very badly, but it's kindof a chain reaction. The thing is, I think there's even more than what I've scratched here, something that deals with David and his dream. Does it show futility, in that he waited for an eternity, and saw that the blue fairy crumbled? Or is it "to show that dreams can come true"? I agree, the ending is really tacked on, and I think it disrupts the flow of the whole movie. I wonder if Kubrick and Spielberg indulged in the whole "cheap gratification" thing in trying to make an uplifting ending so that audiences wouldn't be so depressed and saddened by the results. ------------------ CC.net's most courteous driver Oh yeah, and I'm looking for a job right now, so hire me please
