A.I. - Spielberg Movie

BNC

Saw this movie last night. I have to say I thought it was really good.
Very thought provoking and the performance from Haley Joel Osment was absolutely fantastic. very credible performance, the kid should clear his mantlepiece for that Oscar.

Go see, but dont expect explosions etc or to leave your brain at the door.

Chubby

SPOILERS ALERT...
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

Thought the last 10mins was unnecessary. Should've left the kid in the ice instead of digging him out for a mushy, spielberg ending. But overall a very good movie.

{Edit- Draco} Added more spoiler space.

plastic membrane

Its a strange, almost bizarre mix of Spielberg and Kubrick, and for the most part, it works a treat. And that boy Haley Joel can act...

TinCool

Personally I found it rather boring. Nothing really happens in it at all. Not saying that it was a bad movie, the effects were great, it just didn't hang well. It was basically two movies rolled in to one, just didn't gell very well.

Anyone get 2001 Space Odyssey on DVD yet ? Is the picture/sound quality any good ? I'm talking about the separate box set version not the £50+ special edition.

Manach

I read that AI is based on a Brian Aldiss story.
Does anyone know which one?

plastic membrane

Supertoys Last All Summer Long.

Excelsior

It is selling in an anthology of short stories in Chapters on Middle Abbey St for £4 or thereabouts.

Headcase

this was a Kubrick creation, he asked speilberg to direct and then kubrick was ment produce,but he died as everyone knows bout 2 weeks after eyes wide shut was released.
havent seen it yet, but im gona see it soon

[-Morpheus-]

:eek: It looks crap :eek:

adnans

Originally posted by plastic membrane
Its a strange, almost bizarre mix of Spielberg and Kubrick, and for the most part, it works a treat. And that boy Haley Joel can act...

just call it a Spubrik movie. what do you expect from a 12 or 13 year old boy, the fact that you get complete performance out of him is good enough. very good acting from jude law as Gigolo Joe (what do you know?), he's hip, cool and sexy and im sure every woman will want their own Jude Law sex toy for Christmas.

but make sure that you know, AI is a very long movie for such a short title.

adnans

Shinji

" It looks crap"

Hey people, it's yet another genius who can make informed comment about a film without having seen anything other than movie posters and teaser trailers!

I wish I had the amazing ability to extrapolate the entire content of a two hour plus film from a minutes worth of tightly edited footage

DadaKopf

Yeah, I saw AI today and it's a big pile of steaming robot poo. felt more cheated watching AI than I did watching A Knight's Tale.

I'm with TinCool when he said it's really boring even if he does mention 2001 in the same sentence - but this isn't a contradiction at all. One of 2001's great feats is its dead space that effectively gets across the deadness and precision of space travel and the film never fails being one of the most intense things I've ever seen (and that's helped by the completely overwhelming score by Ligéti).

AI is boring simply because it's a terrible film; the real subject matter, of which Kubrick would have made a bigger story out of, is the first half an hour. Spielberg has it all the wrong way around: the question shouldn't be is a robot capable of love but is a human capable of loving a robot? The former question is simply a follow up to the second. After that, the film judders and falters, picking up one intruiging idea after the other and then tosses it aside because Spielberg hasn't the intelligence or depth to treat them all sufficiently and work them into a whole. Spielberg doesn't even have the filmic, visual language rich enough to get these ideas across.

I mean, the film might have come to a mediocre but satisfying conclusion if the movie ended with Osment in the ice, eternally wishing to be made a real boy but unable to go that last step to yet another question [the question that has driven man crazy for millenia] - the symbolism would have worked. But no, Spielberg went on the for incredibly soppy, Hollywood ending making the film even more pointless than ever. 2001, for example, is cryptic and (except for the ending, some might argue) tackles this "eternal question" with guts and power and direction. AI is just a complete mess.

Stylistically, the film was boring and totally unoriginal; if one thing is certain, Kubrick would have invested more time and vision into the visuals as much as the plot, story, philosophy, acting and script. The family's house looked like a Habitat catalogue and everything else, the special effects, looked like an impotent resurrection of Blade Runner.

Mark Lawson on BBC2 said that the silm is just a sci-fi version of the Jewish holocaust - a sci-fi Schindler's List. Kubrick had so much to say that he made each film different, it's pretty damning of Spielberg if he can't get beyond his Jewish obsession.

So, in the end, I felt disappointed and cheated. I actually expected very little from AI and got even less. What a load of rubbish.

mewso

Originally posted by adnans



but make sure that you know, AI is a very long movie for such a short title.

You mean they forgot the rule that a films length must be reflected in the name. Shame on them and shame on me for assuming it would be only 5 minutes long because the title is only two letters.

BNC

Originally posted by DadaKopf


Spielberg has it all the wrong way around: the question shouldn't be is a robot capable of love but is a human capable of loving a robot?

Wasn't that the question that was asked in the film by the creating scientist.

I mean, the film might have come to a mediocre but satisfying conclusion if the movie ended with Osment in the ice, eternally wishing to be made a real boy but unable to go that last step to yet another question [the question that has driven man crazy for millenia] - the symbolism would have worked. But no, Spielberg went on the for incredibly soppy, Hollywood ending making the film even more pointless than ever.

I thought the same, but if you go back to the question asked at the start of the film "Is a human capable of loving a robot?" The answer is yes. The boys wish comes true and ultimately, in the robots view, he becomes a real boy.

it's pretty damning of Spielberg if he can't get beyond his Jewish obsession.

?? I wouldn't have said this was another Schindlers list at all. Completely different themes. I dont think anyone in schindler wanted to be a real boy! The theme running through the film was love and rejection. Take Jude Laws character for instance. He was a pleasure unit. he was something that was used, used for a purely sexual act, not for love. I wouldn't class Spielberg as having a Jewish obsession on the basis of one holocaust movie and the perception of another.

To be honest I find some of Mark Lawson's reviews actually "snobbish". He wants every film to be a piece of art. Which A.I. certainly isnt. Yes its flawed, which art sometimes can be (as with 2001) but it carries some interesting themes

So, in the end, I felt disappointed and cheated. I actually expected very little from AI and got even less. What a load of rubbish.

Thats a pity.

edited for grammatical error

Bob the Unlucky Octopus

AI is boring simply because it's a terrible film; the real subject matter, of which Kubrick would have made a bigger story out of, is the first half an hour. Spielberg has it all the wrong way around: the question shouldn't be is a robot capable of love but is a human capable of loving a robot? The former question is simply a follow up to the second. After that, the film judders and falters, picking up one intruiging idea after the other and then tosses it aside because Spielberg hasn't the intelligence or depth to treat them all sufficiently and work them into a whole. Spielberg doesn't even have the filmic, visual language rich enough to get these ideas across.

I see someone was taking notes during NewsNight Review :rolleyes:

I agree with one of the reviewers on this point though- the fact that the film's interesting story is dealt with in the first half an hour- and the rest of the film is spent randomly throwing around ideas- especially towards the end, and the apocalyptic atmosphere the film generates. The atmosphere the writing totally wastes. I won't go into spoiler details, but suffice to say- the whole film is a Spielberg family film copout- Kubrick would have made the film in a darker mould, but would certainly have found it impossible to tie its end together(he can never end a film well- just look at Lolita or Space Odessey)

All in all, I expected a Spielberg family film-ticket, what I got is simply six of one, and less than half a dozen of the other- what a pants film.

Occy

Shinji

In ways, Occy, I felt that that's what was almost the most Kubrick-esque of the touches in the movie.

SPOILERS!


Had the film ended with the voiceover after David becomes trapped under the Ferris Wheel, it would have been a neat but bleak ending to a truly tragic and amazing sci-fi fairytale.

As it was, adding the "2000 years later" bit wasn't strictly speaking a BAD idea; the hugely evolved androids were an interesting touch (and eeriely familiar... remember David as we first saw him, in distorted silhouette stepping out of the lift?) and the whole question asked, the bittersweet offer of happiness but only for one day, was a great device.

The problem, really, is that it dragged out. Spielberg (and possibly Kubrick and Watson) knew what he wanted for the final scene; he wanted Monica falling asleep for the last time, just before finally telling David she loved him. That was a fantastic, emotional scene, directed with the kind of punch that Spielberg has become a master at delivering. However, it lost much of its punch because it took too damn long to get there; you could see Spielberg and Watson, with this final scene in mind, wondering what hoops they'd have to jump through to get there.

As it was, they jumped through the wrong ones. They tried to come up with a plausible reasoning for him arriving at this point; they brought in the futuristic androids and their flying machines and their DNA resequencing and their space-time "trails", which was all bollocks and totally out of place.

All they needed to do was to show a simple scene, five minutes long, of David waking up in his house and running to find Monica, who tells him that she loves him. Let the audience work out for themselves that it's not real, that it's only happening in his head - let them put together the pieces about the only mecha ever built who can dream. I understand the need to treat the audience as being stupid (most American commentators assumed that the beings at the end of the film were extraterrestials, sigh) but does it really have to be this blatant?

It's a shame the last 15 minutes was so badly thought out, really. It didn't ruin the film, though - in fact in ways its flawed nature makes it into a much more interesting film because of the discussions it will create.

In more general film terms... Osment is astonishingly talented, and his performance wavers between a kind of naive maturity and a truly child-like incomprehension of the world totally convincingly. At some points in the film, there were very few dry eyes in the house, mine included - and it's a very long time since I cried at the cinema.

Jude Law, who I have never liked in a movie before, is stunning - he's simply perfect for the role of Gigolo Joe, he's cool, funny and despite his grown up form, still conveys a certain child-like approach to the world which contrasts him beautifully with David.

The incidental characters - particularly Brendan Gleeson's sadistic ringmaster - are great... There's really no bad acting performance here. The sets are superb, and the visual style, a bizarre mix of Kubrick's harshness and Spielberg's warmth, works perfectly; you can see the seams between the styles of both directors, but in ways that in itself enhances the movie.


It's a film we're going to be discussing for a very long time. People either love it to bits - I certainly fall into that camp - or hate it completely; there are few people saying "uh, it was just okay". That's good. A movie that moves some to love it and some to hate it is a better movie than one which everyone considers to be "just okay".

DadaKopf

Yeah, Shinji, people are at least going to be discussing it for a good, long time and that is good. But it's no 2001, it's not even any Matrix or Fight Club. If you want a film that explored one side stuff about existence and the mind, the Matrix did it with much more originality in every way.

Nice to see Occy mostly agrees with me . Hehehe. You know, the film could have worked better as a television mini-series. And anyway, what's wrong with The Late Review - Tom Paulin is the man(!) and like him or loathe him, Mark Kermode knows his films. They're never always right but sometimes, they're right on the money .

I dunno, I'd like it if no one went to see AI but that's not going to happen. I'm glad it bombed with viewers and critics in America (I think).

I thought the same, but if you go back to the question asked at the start of the film "Is a human capable of loving a robot?" The answer is yes. The boys wish comes true and ultimately, in the robots view, he becomes a real boy.

Well, I loved Teddy - they should give him his own film. He was the real hero of the movie I wanted to take him home with me but then I got sad because they don't make toys that good at the moment .

By the way, the original Brian Aldiss story "Super-Toys Last All Summer Long" is here.

[-Morpheus-]

Originally posted by Shinji
" It looks crap"

Hey people, it's yet another genius who can make informed comment about a film without having seen anything other than movie posters and teaser trailers!

I wish I had the amazing ability to extrapolate the entire content of a two hour plus film from a minutes worth of tightly edited footage

Please read the words again " It looks crap":rolleyes:
Notice the ">>>>>looks<<<<<<" now can someone tell me where i said "ts crap but i haven't seen the movie"?
Is it just me or are you looking at something else

DadaKopf

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

T.G Catter

its 'haleywood' now... Went to see A.I last nite i was impressed enuf.

adnans

Originally posted by musician
You mean they forgot the rule that a films length must be reflected in the name. Shame on them and shame on me for assuming it would be only 5 minutes long because the title is only two letters.

i know i should have put a smiley face after that comment

adnans

azezil

Interview with Spielberg, includes clip from A.I.

neuro-praxis

I'm with Shinji on this one.

Spunog UIE

its a bit of a fancy ponichico, ya know the wooden dude with the growin nose when he lied, awwwwwwwww chipetto i want to be a reallllllllll little boy

Kix

I think that with A.I., for you to get the ending - hell, the entire film - you have to buy into the story emotionally. If you go looking for glossy sci-fi techno-fun you'll probably be dissapointed.

To leave David without resoultion would have been probably too bleak for most people watching. Personally, I'm not ashamed to say that I got moist eyed when teddy produced the lock of hair.

Great performance from Jude Law too. I loved his strangely focused, yet innocent, perspective on life, all he really knows about is pleasuring women and that colours his views on everything else. Very clever.

Oh, and yes - I want a teddy too!!!


K

EvilGeorge

I think it would have been better if they had ended it when he was in that chopper/submarine trapped under that big cage thingy, at least i would have come out of the cinema in fits of laughter.

but seriously the ending was dragged out and long winded - I won't be looking at this one again for a long time.

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by DadaKopf
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

thats funny.
thats how i feel whenever i read one of your incredible reviews.

now....

when you can make up your own criticisms then you may put them up on the board and ecpect them to be taken seriously....
your obsesion with 2001:a space odessy are interesting.
i mean, 2001:aso, is not very good. i see it has made it your number one film, but if that can be anyones favourite film, then i cant take anything you say seriously.
and A.I. is a good film. it entertained me. and therefore it did exactly what i wanted it to do.

Amen.

DadaKopf

Really WhiteWashMan, that's really interesting. What is it exactly you object to? I mean, I'm just one person with a keyboard like you. You're as pointless as I am.

You probably have the face of a jerk.

I mean everyone can have their opinions can't they? You seriously think my opinion isn't my own? Of are you one of these people who just has to try and think differently from everyone else because you want to feel special?

What is your problem?

Renton

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan


...A whole load of flame nonsence....

WWM = Whitelancer ?

Crash&Burn

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan


thats funny.
thats how i feel whenever i read one of your incredible reviews.

Amen.

Well Eamo blues news like his writin and so do a few other place's so I would say he does do nice reviews ....

/me slips wwman some pms tablets :P

sceptre

Went out and got a Brian Aldiss compilation with the three Supertoys stories in (...all summer long, ...when winter comes, and... in other seasons)

Comes with an Aldiss introduction talking about working with Kubrick and his original idea for a finisher (David at a factory seeing thousands of androids like him and realising for the first time that he's not a real boy). Aldiss wasn't at all pleased even before the movie was started. (not that that really means anything - he did sell the rights to his stories)

Intresting introduction though. For one, I'd have liked the ending in the short stories but that's just a personal thing. Tacked-on happy endings don't work well with me.

I'll post the introduction if anyone's interested (won't take it personally if no-one is)

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Really WhiteWashMan, that's really interesting. What is it exactly you object to? I mean, I'm just one person with a keyboard like you. You're as pointless as I am.

You probably have the face of a jerk.

I mean everyone can have their opinions can't they? You seriously think my opinion isn't my own? Of are you one of these people who just has to try and think differently from everyone else because you want to feel special?

What is your problem?

ZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzwhat
*cough splutter*
sorry you woke me.
oh sorry, i was just trying to get away from your tripe.
gosh, you certainly dont like people to pass remarks about your write ups do you. bit sensetive are we?
face like a jerk?
dunno, ive never met you to find out.
back to sleep it is
ZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

from renton

quote:

---

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan


...A whole load of flame nonsence....

---

WWM = Whitelancer ?

nope, i think you have taken that from someone else. cant see that in my post.
and no, im not whitelancer. ohh, i feel all dirty now.

and crash.
there are reasons why i dont read blues news you know....
pms was last week.
im in a good mood this week

DadaKopf

Wow, what a comeback. Well done, well done.

Crash&Burn

Originally posted by WhiteWashMan


and crash.
pms was last week.

So ur back in business this week good stuff Ill see u in the usal place

WhiteWashMan

Originally posted by DadaKopf
Wow, what a comeback. Well done, well done.

oh, now youve gone and hurt my feelings.
please, if youre going to insult me for having my opinion (which apparently is important to you) at least have the decency to do a good job.
not only do you write rubbish, but youre a hypocritical tart as well.
please just go away.
you are becoming annoying now.

Crash&Burn

And u said pms was finished last week :rolleyes::p

--Kaiser--

I have to say i thought Spieldberg made complete shít out of what could have been a very good movie, if Kubrick had directed it, especially with the naseating 'happy' ending that felt tacked on.
I thought it would end in the heartbreaking moment when David whispers 'mommie' and jumps into the sea, and this ending would have rounded it off better.

That said, Haley Joel Osment's performance was absolutely astonishing throughout, one of the best actors i have ever seen.

DeVore

aaaaah, the pain, make the bad pain stop.

dev 30 second review, chronologically through the film.

ok
hmmm
cool
hahah the teddybear
oooh run away...
hmmm
what time is it.. .wow just enough time left to cut to the chase
hmmm
long film
eh? get on with it
grrrrrrr
yer wan in the 3rd row's alright
snore
oh come ON.
what time is it... fs the pub will be closed
ah sad ending.
hey its not over.
oh ffs
cool, aliens, maybe they have laser guns, anythings better then this.
oh jesus
hey that guys leaving early, wish I could
snore
oh god the ending.
barf.


DeV.

Overlord

I am surprised but I'm with Shinji on this one. This film was good.

A.I. is about emotion and the value of dreaming. The two qualities that set us most obviously apart from machines.

When it comes to Spielberg's tear-jerker bits, some like them and some loath them. And as a tear-jerker this wasn't one of the best. The film did provoke thought - about my existence and am I really any different to a mechanical person if that person had all the attributes that I have? It can be seen as being a cold film depending on the conclusions you take from the questions posed.
Questions such as the way we look at and live life and seperate ourselves. Is logic the "Truth"? Isn't it emotion and dreaming that clouds pure logic? What value emotion and dreaming then? Is organic life the only "true" life? Can we create in our own image? If our race becomes extinct just how will we be remembered? What will we want to be remembered for?
Its a fairy tale for robots. Maybe they will watch it in 2000 years and come to the conclusion we werent that bad a species really