A.I. a great movie that was overlooked and shunned by the public?

[corycouger]

I thought it was powerful and moving film.


Do you think 20 years from now, people will appreciate it more?

[Jackskeleton]

who knows. All I know is a lot of people felt that Stan would have ended it with the robot in the water stuck forever. Atleast that's what they think.

A lot of folks just got tired at the end and felt that it was a bit long.

[tanman]

I for one actually liked it.

[pdjennings]

A.I. (http://themovieboy.com/reviews/a/01_ai.htm) was a brilliant movie. An example of filmmaking perfection from beginning to end and very much overlooked. HJO should have gotten an Oscar nomination (and won it).

[B.A.]

If the ending of the movie sucks, it usually doesn't matter what happened during the previous 2+ hours of the film - people will usually shun it.

[Rivero]

Originally posted by Jackskeleton
All I know is a lot of people felt that Stan would have ended it with the robot in the water stuck forever.

These people would be clueless and wrong. Anyone who bothered to look into it would know that Kubrick planned to end the film in the same way that was eventually realized for the final film. Do a little hunting on google and see some of the extras on the DVD.

Science-fiction, REAL science-fiction, always gets a bad rap from the general public who mostly just equate sci-fi with Star Wars action and namby pampy outer-space cliches. A.I. is indeed a wonderfully realized film and, like Steven Soderbergh's recent equally overlooked Solaris, will weather the storm of dismissive ignorance that followed it's initial release.

[Rivero]

Originally posted by B.A.
If the ending of the movie sucks, it usually doesn't matter what happened during the previous 2+ hours of the film - people will usually shun it.

This is probably true. Thankfully A.I.'s ending was a fitting and perfect close to this story.

[B.A.]

Originally posted by Rivero
This is probably true. Thankfully A.I.'s ending was a fitting and perfect close to this story. I didn't like the ending to A.I., but that is only one of many issues I had w/ the film. A lot of people love it, it's just not my cup of tea. The one thing I learned from A.I. - the greatness that is Jude Law.

A movie that was ruined completely by it's ending, or the last hour of it, was Scorsese's GANGS OF NEW YORK. The first 90 minutes of that film were great, but the last hour was terrible.

[Achtung]

I really liked the film, and while I'm not a big fan of the ending, I don't think it should have ended with the kid at the bottom of the ocean. It's a great-looking film too, IMO.

I also agree that Jude Law was excellent in this movie.

[Geofferson]

I thought it was a fantastic movie. It had very effective symbolism and beautiful set pieces. I too was a bit let-down by the ending, but that doesn't mean I didn't appreciate the movie.

[sundog]

Originally posted by Jackskeleton
All I know is a lot of people felt that Stan would have ended it with the robot in the water stuck forever . . .

Don't know why so many people think Kubrick to be so pessimistic. By the above sentiment, the Journey Beyond the Infinite of 2001 would be cut. Alex's recovery in A Clockwork Orange would be cut. Susanne Christian's song in Paths of Glory would be cut. Lady Lyndon signing Barry's check in Barry Lyndon is gone. And the final conversation between the Harfords in the toy store in Eyes Wide Shut just isn't there. Hell, the entire 2nd half of Full Metal Jacket could go.

Kubrick loaded his films with ambiguous details dependent upon the viewer to create and gauge their own feelings. Of the above listed only 2001 and Eyes Wide Shut could be called "happy" endings. But all those endings steer the viewer away from the pat conclusions that "downer" endings usually signify.

Spielberg did the same in the ending of A.I. Just look how similar that conclusion mirrors the ending in 2001.

And that's what makes the Spielberg film so good. I'd argue that it's his most personal film because the content is so removed from his hot button issues (wars, nazis, holocaust etc.). The director has no footholds except his impeccable visual artistry, and that truly shines like I've never seen before in his films.

[Rivero]

Well said, sundog.

[mookyman]

I agree. Also, while the ending is a personal victory for the protagonist, it also depicts the end of humanity. Not the most "up" ending.

[PixyJunket]

Beautiful, excellent movie. Fantastically creepy ending.

[Goat3001]

I for one really enjoyed the movie. I also liked the ending. However, if they had left it at the bottom of the ocean I think it would have been much better. If it had ended that way it would've made perfect sense with the whole "his love lasts forever" thing.

Will it be realized as a great film in 20 years? Who knows, I guess we'll find out in 20 years.

[Rivero]

Originally posted by mookyman
I agree. Also, while the ending is a personal victory for the protagonist, it also depicts the end of humanity.

His victory is only fleeting anyway, David's mother dies afterwards leaving him with absolutely nothing. Always found it a profoundly sad ending.

[Lastblade]

I have yet to see the movie and I really want to. Well, someone lends me the DVD! :D

[taa455]

I have great appreciation for A.I. The direction and cinematograpy were both excellent. The script was intelligent and provocative. Who cares if the mass public shuns it?

[BassDude]

WOW! Great ta see so many A.I. fans! Thought I was all alone for a while!

Yes...to answer the thread title question.

[Frank TJ Mackey]

I've always thought it was brilliant. This is one hell of a sci-fi classic in my opinion.

[fumanstan]

Great movie. I was a little underwhelmed by the ending when i saw it in theaters, but upon subsequent viewings it made more sense.

Plus, Teddy is just so damn cute.

[tanman]

So in general was it the mass public who really hated it? I always thought it was the Kubrickian purists who didn't care for it. I thought it was a wonderful film dispite what may or may not have happened. It is also the least Speilbergian Speilberg movie that he has done. IMHO. A different feel for it at any rate.

[FinkPish]

I watched this again recently, after being somewhat disappointed seeing it in the theater. I still have some big problems with it, and I think they were easier to spot the second time I watched it.

In terms of an emotional journey for what was supposed to be a new breed of emotional robot, David changed very little from when he was "activated" by his mother. He sought attention and love, and when he didn't get it, he went a bit nuts. By the end, he was the same, he still only craved attention and love from his mother, at least to my mind.

After all that time underwater, his emotions never develop or mature, he is still the lonely 10 year-old boy. Since the film was called A.I., I would have thought that David would have advanced his intelligence somewhat in this time, maybe chewing on some things that he experienced while on his journey and having a new outlook after he was revived after 1000 years. He remained very stagnant emotionally the whole time, and to me, most of the story felt like parts of Rain Man, only without Tom Cruise to provide some balance to Raymond's ramblings.

There was so much that was in the film to affect the audience on an emotional level, such as the Flesh Fair and David finding his origins, but David seems to sleepwalk through all of it, always fixated on his goal to receive love from his mother. Of course, maybe this is supposed to be the tragic point of the story, and I'm missing it, but to me it was frustrating, having an emotional robot that seemed locked on to one emotion.

[mike harnish]

I love AI. It's now in my top 10 of all time. About the ending...when Monica dies for good, so to speak, after spending that day with David, David also dies, according to one of the documentaries on the disc, he doesn't just shutdown or go to sleep. So, the ending isn't just a simple, sweet, happy, Speilberg ending. When I was watching that scene, I found myself focusing on Teddy, though, sitting at the end of the bed. He was left all alone, with David and Monica now gone. Wish he could have gone with them.

[Heat]

What was the ending?

I seem to remember the aliens giving him one wish or something like that, and he chose to be a real boy with his old mom* for one day, or something like that.

The toy bear had a snip of her hair, so the aliens could bring her back through that.

[Josh H]

Originally posted by Jackskeleton
who knows. All I know is a lot of people felt that Stan would have ended it with the robot in the water stuck forever. Atleast that's what they think.


I have no idea where Kubrick would have ended it, but that's where it should have been ended IMO.

But it's still a very good movie. Not great, but very good. And even if it had ended there, it still wouldn't be great IMO, but I would rate it slightly higher.

[movieking]

I really disliked the movie. I agree that it should have ended 20 minutes before it did, but I had trouble with the whole story throughout.

[Trigger]

I think around here half the people liked it and half hated it. I didn't like it, but I'll probably give it another chance at some point. The ending was just one of my problems with it.

[King Jaspo]

AI was a decent film.

I do think it was uneven. Transitions between parts of the movie were abrupt. This made it seem overly long. As if I was watching 3 separate movies.

I enjoyed the beginning. Seemed like 60's/70's science fiction. (Illustrated Man / THX 1138)

The middle seemed drawn out and way to dark (visually).

I thought ending story was very good, but I didn't care for the alien visuals. They looked so derivative.

I think it is one those movies that could have used a pair of scissors to reduce some of slow spots. I definately wouldn't call it a classic. I have watched it twice, and I would watch it again ... and probably again.

Ahhh but these are just off-the-cuff opinions.

[RevLiver]

Originally posted by King Jaspo
I thought ending story was very good, but I didn't care for the alien visuals.

Just to clarify, there were no aliens in A.I. Highly advanced Mechas, yes, but no aliens.

[Lara Means]

I will always consider A.I. to be one of the finest films Spielberg has made in his entire career. I never understood the bitching about the ending and I never will. You can't get it any more down beat than it is already.

[Fok]

A great movie, but ending dragged on, it was disapointing for a movie that had a great start.

[bralph]

If you want to read the most comprehensive analysis of A.I. that I have seen, check out these posts by Ernest Rister from the HTF. Unfortunately, it's pretty old so most of the screenshots only have the X, but it's still an amazing (and long) read.

Part One: Flat Facts and Fairly Tails (http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum/showthread.php?postid=2059277#post2059277)

Part Two: World of Metaphor, of Intuition, of Self-Motivated Reasoning, of Dreams (http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum/showthread.php?postid=2060274#post2060274)

Part Three: The Ending of A.I. Shot by Shot (http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum/showthread.php?postid=2065183#post2065183)

Part Four: The Invisible Jigsaw Puzzle (http://www.hometheaterforum.com/htforum/showthread.php?postid=2067890#post2067890)

[DieselsDen]

I enjoyed A.I., also, and I think it's greatly underrated. However, I agree with the majority who believe the ending nearly ruins the film. Suddenly, we're teleported 2000 years in the future, and we get exposition after exposition after exposition about David and his mother and the whole meaning of it all. It was jarring, schmaltzy, and too simplistic. However, the visuals, as well as many of the earlier scenes, were incredible.

I seem to recall that the daughter of Stanley Kubrick gave the movie a SCATHING review. I'll have to look for that on-line.

[necros]

I thought it was really really great, but what just killed it for me was the whole ending part. If the film just ended with him under water asking to become a boy or whatever, it would have been perfect.

[Talkin2Phil]

I really enjoyed the movie, I especially liked the ending. However, AI suffers from Spielberg’s overly sentimental ‘view of the child’- too much emphasis on the fairy tale. But the themes are great; what it means to be human, what is love, what is unconditional love, is the need for love selfish, etc. It just could have been executed better. Also, the film was doomed because of the ghost of Kubrick’s mystique. IMO Teddy was the most human of all the characters.

[auto]

Great flick except...

1) pointless cameo from Robin Williams
2) pointless cameo from Chris Rock

Cheapens an otherwise great sci-fi experience.

[lukewarmwater]

I thought the movie sounded and looked great but the flesh fair and the ending just sucked.
I don't think it was horrible, just nothing special.

Also minority report should have ended with cruise still atached to the prison/machine thingys

[IDrinkMolson]

Any Cloudmakers out there?

I enjoyed the movie, but after following along with the internet game I was expecting much more.

The game was one of the greatest things ever.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/coming.attractions/stories/aibuzz.html

http://www.cloudmakers.org/trail/

[chente]

I thought is was decent. Maybe I'll rent it this weekend for a revisit.

[Ruderic]

Originally posted by lukewarmwater
I thought the movie sounded and looked great but the flesh fair and the ending just sucked.
I don't think it was horrible, just nothing special.

Also minority report should have ended with cruise still atached to the prison/machine thingys

I personally disliked the ending of the movie and do think it ruined the film. I am surprised the movie has this many fans. I don't plan to see it again.

As for Minority Report I had no problem with him not being in prison but I did think Collin Farell's last scene was stolen from LA Confidential.

[mikehunt]

teddy was the best part of the movie
not saying it was bad, just saying teddy was best

[milo bloom]

Originally posted by RevLiver
Just to clarify, there were no aliens in A.I. Highly advanced Mechas, yes, but no aliens.

I really think that's what throws a lot of people off. We were discussing the movie at work a while back, and somebody mentioned the aliens at the end. I told them they were advanced mecha, and they asked why I thought that. I said because that's what they are, that's the story. They said the ending made more sense with that knowledge.

I thought the film was wonderful regardless. Truly an exploration of "just because we can do a thing, does not mean we should do a thing" with regards to artificial intelligence and the like.

And I think the ending needs to be there, David's journey was long and perilous, if he didn't find what he was looking for, I would have felt cheated. I feel a similar way about the alternate Clerk's ending. Dante's journey thru the day was also perilous, and him living to see another day is what makes it worth it.

[Rivero]

Originally posted by DieselsDen

I seem to recall that the daughter of Stanley Kubrick gave the movie a SCATHING review. I'll have to look for that on-line.

And his wife called it "wonderful, challenging, and provoking".

[Abranut]

Originally posted by mikehunt
teddy was the best part of the movie
not saying it was bad, just saying teddy was best

He was the only thing worth watching for me.

I thought the rest of it was kinda crappy.

[Seeker]

I enjoyed the movie a lot. Thematically it held together.

In fact, to address Pinkfish's concerns about the movie - you ARE exactly right, the fact that David DID only have one basic emotion (love for his mother) was one of his flaws. He had enough awareness and feelings to realize that he was limited, but he did his "best" within that limited framework.

In that sense, he could only be what his creator (the father figure scientist) wanted him to be - a reflection of the son that he had lost. And as such, David had little to no free will.

It's an allegorical tale reflecting the concept of free will vs. a sort of predestination - granted free will, we as humans have more leeway to decide what we want to be.

So, in the end, David cannot really progress personally - and so appropriately sleepwalks through the movie - wanting only one thing - his "mother". The advanced mechas don't really want to give that to him, because they'd LIKE to think he can grow beyond it, but when they realize he can't, they go ahead and give it to him (and sigh, if mechas can sigh by then).

The story is NOT lighthearted - David gets what he wants because he can't reach beyond that, and humans, who COULD reach beyond - become extinct, because they choose a baser path (and that is partially indicated by the flesh fair.)

[FinkPish]

Originally posted by Seeker
I enjoyed the movie a lot. Thematically it held together.

In fact, to address Pinkfish's concerns about the movie - you ARE exactly right, the fact that David DID only have one basic emotion (love for his mother) was one of his flaws. He had enough awareness and feelings to realize that he was limited, but he did his "best" within that limited framework.

In that sense, he could only be what his creator (the father figure scientist) wanted him to be - a reflection of the son that he had lost. And as such, David had little to no free will.

It's an allegorical tale reflecting the concept of free will vs. a sort of predestination - granted free will, we as humans have more leeway to decide what we want to be.

So, in the end, David cannot really progress personally - and so appropriately sleepwalks through the movie - wanting only one thing - his "mother". The advanced mechas don't really want to give that to him, because they'd LIKE to think he can grow beyond it, but when they realize he can't, they go ahead and give it to him (and sigh, if mechas can sigh by then).

The story is NOT lighthearted - David gets what he wants because he can't reach beyond that, and humans, who COULD reach beyond - become extinct, because they choose a baser path (and that is partially indicated by the flesh fair.)

I totally agree with your interpretation of the movie. I think for me it was the visual and storytelling style of Spielberg that didn't work with David's tragic "life." I'm not saying it would have had to have been all dark and depressing, but for me the themes of the movie just didn't come through while watching it. After watching it, I definitely saw what you did, but as a movie on its own, I think it didn't work.

[ScandalUMD]

Originally posted by FinkPish
I watched this again recently, after being somewhat disappointed seeing it in the theater. I still have some big problems with it, and I think they were easier to spot the second time I watched it.

In terms of an emotional journey for what was supposed to be a new breed of emotional robot, David changed very little from when he was "activated" by his mother. He sought attention and love, and when he didn't get it, he went a bit nuts. By the end, he was the same, he still only craved attention and love from his mother, at least to my mind.

After all that time underwater, his emotions never develop or mature, he is still the lonely 10 year-old boy. Since the film was called A.I., I would have thought that David would have advanced his intelligence somewhat in this time, maybe chewing on some things that he experienced while on his journey and having a new outlook after he was revived after 1000 years. He remained very stagnant emotionally the whole time, and to me, most of the story felt like parts of Rain Man, only without Tom Cruise to provide some balance to Raymond's ramblings.

There was so much that was in the film to affect the audience on an emotional level, such as the Flesh Fair and David finding his origins, but David seems to sleepwalk through all of it, always fixated on his goal to receive love from his mother. Of course, maybe this is supposed to be the tragic point of the story, and I'm missing it, but to me it was frustrating, having an emotional robot that seemed locked on to one emotion.

That was the whole point of the movie. The very idea of David is creepy and troubling.

[FinkPish]

Originally posted by ScandalUMD
That was the whole point of the movie. The very idea of David is creepy and troubling.

I know, and like I said just above, I didn't think that Spielberg's style (and reputation) worked well with the subject matter. In every other film he's done with a child lead, it has never ever gone in this direction, not even close. And its my problem that I can't get around that, but to me it didn't come across as creepy, just annoying, maybe because I was expecting something different. Or maybe because he really didn't deliver on what the story was supposed to be about. I honestly don't know.

Edit: And to add to this, while I've been thinking about it, I think my biggest problem is the music and the voiceover. I work as a music editor, and so I am very aware of the music going on in every scene, and I think for this film, John Williams music was too sentimental. I don't think it needed to be extremely dark or ironically sentimental, but the music never helped me understand the story and the message. Added to that, the voiceover made the film seem to have more of a fairytale-like quality. Not distrurbing or creepy at all, especially since we find that the voice belongs to the Mecha at the end. Maybe it was just Kingsley's voice itself that did it, but it really threw me off, from what Spielberg was obviously trying to do.

[bozy]

The film grows on me, it was much better the second time watching.

[NEUMANN]

I thought the movie was a classic,and to add to what another poster said about a co-worker thinking they where aliens at the end ,i too have ran into it a lot,it seems half the people i ever talked to about the movie thought they where aliens at the end i am surprised at this since it is very apperant they are super advanced robots

[tanman]

Originally posted by NEUMANN
I thought the movie was a classic,and to add to what another poster said about a co-worker thinking they where aliens at the end ,i too have ran into it a lot,it seems half the people i ever talked to about the movie thought they where aliens at the end i am surprised at this since it is very apperant they are super advanced robots

It is anything BUT very obvious. The worst thing about the movie was the design of the super robots that led people to believe they were aliens.

[Jack Straw]

Don't forgot Robin William's contribtution as "Dr. Know". I really need to watch that movie again for the 3rd or 4th time.

[mikehunt]

the mecha did look a lot like a common current conception of aliens
i figured out they were advanced mecha right away, but I could understand if someone thought they were aliens

[NEUMANN]

Originally posted by tanman
It is anything BUT very obvious. The worst thing about the movie was the design of the super robots that led people to believe they were aliens.

Well it looked obvious to me lol

[Lara Means]

Yes, it was pretty goddamn obvious that the things at the end of the movie were advanced robots. From the shit that is said earlier in the movie to what the advance robots do to David and each other. If you thought they were aliens.... then youre an idiot. Being an idiot is not an excuse for hating this movie.

[FinkPish]

I don't see someone as being an idiot who would have considered that the Mechas would have died along with the humans during the new ice age. Compared to a few of the aliens from Close Encounters, I could definitely see how they could be confused for aliens.

And I don't think anyone here has said they hated the movie because they thought the beings were aliens at the end. I think those that said so didn't like the ending at all, aliens or not.

[Jackskeleton]

The Mechas had what you would typically relate an alien look to be with their long heads and white bodies. I wouldn't say that is far fetched for someone to confuse the two.

And I would think that the dislike of how the film went on a bit longer then what some would expect had nothing to do with aliens or advanced mechas.

I enjoyed it. Can't say I would watch it often. But I can see why it isn't for everyone.

[John-In-VA]

Originally posted by Lara Means
Yes, it was pretty goddamn obvious that the things at the end of the movie were advanced robots. From the shit that is said earlier in the movie to what the advance robots do to David and each other. If you thought they were aliens.... then youre an idiot. Being an idiot is not an excuse for hating this movie.

That's quite harsh.

[Rivero]

Originally posted by tanman
It is anything BUT very obvious. The worst thing about the movie was the design of the super robots that led people to believe they were aliens.

Um, sorry but to me there were definitely clues spread throughout the film that would have you infer that they were indeed advanced mechas at the end, from the statue David sees in front of the building in Manhattan to Law's line about them being the only ones left after the human race is gone. I guess some people simply weren't paying attention at that point.

[Ruderic]

Originally posted by John-In-VA
That's quite harsh.

Lara Means is mean!

And I still disliked the movie.

[fumanstan]

Originally posted by Lara Means
Yes, it was pretty goddamn obvious that the things at the end of the movie were advanced robots. From the shit that is said earlier in the movie to what the advance robots do to David and each other. If you thought they were aliens.... then youre an idiot. Being an idiot is not an excuse for hating this movie.

That is quite harsh. I'd say very many people thought they were aliens. I know i did. But thanks for calling me an idiot :(

[baracine]

I had originally posted this "spoiler" of the ending with Spoiler alerts in another thread. Here it is again...

The new race of super-robots only has rationality to rely on. They are the creation of man's rational aspect. They also see the negative aspects of man's irrationality all around them: their world self-destructed after all and they (the mechas) can only sift through the rubble. But they would also like to understand the positive emotions of humanity, like unconditional love, which they had no way of accessing until they found the boy who, even though he is mecha, has bonded with a real human in a (possibly one-sided) mother-son relationship and has been imprinted with typical human, emotional responses because he is the direct creation of a genius of a human being. To the mechas, this is the holy grail, a quantum leap in their evolution and a new cognitive link to the race that created them and, therefore, to their origins. Emotions you and I take for granted are very mysterious to them. So they stage the very elaborate and very costly (fairy-like) masquerade that is the ending to this stupendous movie so they can record, once and for all, the emotions of requited human love, even though it is only a fleeting moment in time, somewhat akin to putting a very old and brittle piece of tape of a priceless musical performance through one final pass to digitize it before it crumbles to dust. To me, this ending is as beautiful, satisfying and tragic, if not more so, than any opera ever written.
(Pardon me while I dry my eyes here.)

I just want to add that John Williams' music in this final scene is one of his all-time best works, conveying the tragic poignancy as well as the sacred nature of the proceedings, and that, yes, it will live forever.

[baracine]

I have an older brother who thinks he's an intellectual and is quite pretentious within his limited means. He not only thought the mechas at the end of the film were aliens, he disliked the movie intensely because David had a funny laugh in one scene, because he stayed open-eyed at the bottom of the swimming pool in another one and that he was slack-jawed in still another one.

I asked him why he thought the beings at the end were aliens and he said: "Because they looked like aliens." I also asked him where he had seen aliens before but I got no answer to that one...

He even had a problem with David and Gigolo Joe stopping the vanful of teenagers on their way to Rouge City, even after I explained that Gigolo Joe being a Mecha evidently knew how to repair their car - which had broken down - and that, being a gigolo, he could evidently put them in touch with a few ladies of the night, human or otherwise, in exchange for their protection, their silence and a free lift to where they were all going.

My own flesh and blood... Tsk, tsk, tsk.

To this day, even after my lecturing him through 500 e-mails, he still hasn't given that film another chance.:brickwl:

I think Jesus said: "There is no deaf man like he who will not hear."

[iggystar]

I thought they were aliens also. I missed the clues throughout the movie because I'd passed out around hour three.

It wasn't the worst movie, it was just too darn long.

[baracine]

Originally posted by iggystar
I thought they were aliens also. I missed the clues throughout the movie because I'd passed out around hour three.

It wasn't the worst movie, it was just too darn long.

They weren't "clues", they were the subject of the film. It's even called "Artificial Intelligence".

The film starts with a lecture on the natural disasters man has brought upon himself and how the situation is worsening and things are only tolerable for a minuscule proportion of humanity (much like today) and how the only reason life is tolerable is humanity has devised cheap help in the form of robots.

After a scene showing how it is possible for a human murderer to eschew moral obligations by having a mecha accused in his stead, the flesh fair presents humanity in its worst and harshest light as being primitive, hateful, vengeful, petty, violent, sadistic and jealous of the new technology (much like Tarantino fans, actually). In other words, decadent, uncomprehending, overemotional and not fit to survive.

In fact, many scenes point out that mechas, as imperfect as they are, have the moral high ground over ordinary humans.

If this film were an opera, Gigolo Joe's lecture to David on what man has done to himself and how man secretly hates mechas for being the only form of intelligence who has a chance to survive the coming apocalypse would have been its central aria.

So, no, they aren't clues. They're the mainframe, so to speak.

[Dead]

Originally posted by Lara Means
... If you thought they were aliens.... then youre an idiot. Being an idiot is not an excuse for hating this movie.

Guys, some of this is getting to personal. Let's try to keep the discussion on the topic and avoid making remarks, even if they are indirect, about other members.

[baracine]

Originally posted by Dead
Guys, some of this is getting to personal. Let's try to keep the discussion on the topic and avoid making remarks, even if they are indirect, about other members.

Can I still make fun of my brother the intellectual?:D

[Rivero]

"She loves what you do for her, as my customers love what it is I do for them. But she does not love you David, she cannot love you. You are neither flesh, nor blood. You are not a dog, a cat, or a canary. You were designed and built specific, like the rest of us. And you are alone now only because they tired of you, or replaced you with a younger model, or were displeased with something you said, or broke. They made us too smart, too quick, and too many. We are suffering for the mistakes they made because when the end comes, all that will be left is us. That's why they hate us, and that is why you must stay here, with me. "

[baracine]

Originally posted by Rivero
"She loves what you do for her, as my customers love what it is I do for them. But she does not love you David, she cannot love you. You are neither flesh, nor blood. You are not a dog, a cat, or a canary. You were designed and built specific, like the rest of us. And you are alone now only because they tired of you, or replaced you with a younger model, or were displeased with something you said, or broke. They made us too smart, too quick, and too many. We are suffering for the mistakes they made because when the end comes, all that will be left is us. That's why they hate us, and that is why you must stay here, with me. "

Thank you for that post, Rivero. It puts everything in perspective.

My favourite scene in the whole film is that wicked little dissolve between the Professor's lecture hall, from the face of the female demonstration mecha putting on her make-up to David's future "mother" in the car, on the way to the hospital, putting on her make-up, the implication being that, sure, mechas were made in the image of their makers, but which is more artificial or more trustworthy?

No, wait! My favourite scene has to be the ending, after all. What is happening on screen is so monumental, it defies description: Not only is the human race gone forever but the only surviving Mecha who has interacted with them on an emotional level (David) dies in the arms of his mother, thereby revealing to all the evolved Mecha observers the secret of human love and concluding many eons of human love, suffering and history. The whole thing is almost too big to grasp without choking, so the thing that makes it palatable on a more human, down-to-earth, realistic, emotional, Spielbergian level (besides the music), is Teddy's reaction, which is simply heart-breaking. Because... he understands what's going on (thus proving he is more intelligent than the average movie-goer)!

[Rivero]

Although I agree with you on the effectiveness of the ending, I'm not sure David actually dies in the end. It's left ambiguous but it's never stated that he would die.

[baracine]

Originally posted by Rivero
Although I agree with you on the effectiveness of the ending, I'm not sure David actually dies in the end. It's left ambiguous but it's never stated that he would die.

Hey, Teddy's reaction tells the whole story!

[mike harnish]

In one of the documentaries on the disc, John Williams, the composer of the music for the film, says directly that David dies at the end. It may not be so obvious in the film itself what happens--does he die, shutdown, go to sleep, what?--but he does die, according to those who made the film.

[P.E.]

Amazing movie, IMO. From the first time I saw it, I was hooked. And I too think the ending was perfect.

[CheapBastid]

Originally posted by mike harnish
I love AI. It's now in my top 10 of all time. About the ending...when Monica dies for good, so to speak, after spending that day with David, David also dies, according to one of the documentaries on the disc, he doesn't just shutdown or go to sleep. So, the ending isn't just a simple, sweet, happy, Speilberg ending. When I was watching that scene, I found myself focusing on Teddy, though, sitting at the end of the bed. He was left all alone, with David and Monica now gone. Wish he could have gone with them. Yep. I don't know how anyone could say it was a 'happy ending' it was terribly sad.

[sundog]

Originally posted by mike harnish
In one of the documentaries on the disc, John Williams, the composer of the music for the film, says directly that David dies at the end. It may not be so obvious in the film itself what happens--does he die, shutdown, go to sleep, what?--but he does die, according to those who made the film.

In my opinion, that doesn't matter. The movie itself doesn't address the question and the ambiguity remains, no matter what the filmmakers say.

Now, it is interesting that the filmmakers feel that way, but chose not to address it directly.

[DigIt]

Originally posted by CheapBastid
Yep. I don't know how anyone could say it was a 'happy ending' it was terribly sad. I see this argument presented a lot, but when people say "happy ending" they're not talking about optimism versus pessimism. It's a figure of speech, meaning that the ending is saccharine and emotional and pushing all of your buttons. Most "happy ending" critics are commenting on the effectiveness of this emotional crescendo, and I for one agree that it is not very effective (or, at least, that it is not very endearing).

[hugo1000faces]

One aspect of A.I. that I find unsettling is that it reminds me of how short this life is. And David's bittersweet time with his mother reminds me of how little time I have with my loved ones. True, these are good things to realize and act upon, but the thought is nonetheless unpleasant.

I really enjoyed the movie, but I think it's these themes that keep me from watching it more often.

[ScandalUMD]

Originally posted by FinkPish
I know, and like I said just above, I didn't think that Spielberg's style (and reputation) worked well with the subject matter. In every other film he's done with a child lead, it has never ever gone in this direction, not even close. And its my problem that I can't get around that, but to me it didn't come across as creepy, just annoying, maybe because I was expecting something different. Or maybe because he really didn't deliver on what the story was supposed to be about. I honestly don't know.

Edit: And to add to this, while I've been thinking about it, I think my biggest problem is the music and the voiceover. I work as a music editor, and so I am very aware of the music going on in every scene, and I think for this film, John Williams music was too sentimental. I don't think it needed to be extremely dark or ironically sentimental, but the music never helped me understand the story and the message. Added to that, the voiceover made the film seem to have more of a fairytale-like quality. Not distrurbing or creepy at all, especially since we find that the voice belongs to the Mecha at the end. Maybe it was just Kingsley's voice itself that did it, but it really threw me off, from what Spielberg was obviously trying to do.

That's kind of the point as well. It is a fairy tale; it's Pinnochio. It's not really hard escape-from-your-nerd-life sci-fi; it's sci-fi as allegory, or fable, and that's the point. The whole point of the movie is that it's about David's love, which is genuine, but still monstrous.

I don't think it's necessary to punch up every theme with the music cues; there is a place for subtlety, and the music is not at all inappropriate.

[FinkPish]

Originally posted by ScandalUMD
That's kind of the point as well. It is a fairy tale; it's Pinnochio. It's not really hard escape-from-your-nerd-life sci-fi; it's sci-fi as allegory, or fable, and that's the point. The whole point of the movie is that it's about David's love, which is genuine, but still monstrous.

I don't think it's necessary to punch up every theme with the music cues; there is a place for subtlety, and the music is not at all inappropriate.

I understand the ideas that the film was trying to get across, I'm just saying that for whatever reasons, they didn't work for me in the way that they were presented. It's just a matter of taste.

I never said that every theme in the movie needed music, I just said that the music didn't seem to reinforce for me what other people are obviously seeing in this film.

[baracine]

IMHO, the point is not that the film makes you feel good or bad or satisfied with your present level of insurance coverage. The point is, it's a GREAT film, one of the greatest!

And John Williams' music is subtle and multi-layered (for once), becoming almost inexistent towards the end. I also like the musical reference to the French lullaby "Une chanson douce" (a.k.a. "Le loup, la biche et le chevalier", sung by the Mecha nanny, written by Henri Salvador in the 50's) which certainly stirred all the heartstrings of this little Frenchie in the most shameless fashion and made me understand the benevolence of the Mechas on a very emotional level.

[tanman]

Dare I say it.

I actually really like a film that Baracine is gushing over?

[SMB-IL]

Originally posted by sundog
In my opinion, that doesn't matter. The movie itself doesn't address the question and the ambiguity remains, no matter what the filmmakers say.

Now, it is interesting that the filmmakers feel that way, but chose not to address it directly.

I think the movie addresses the question most directly: "So David went to sleep too". His mother didn't "go to sleep', she died. If David "went to sleep too" -- he died as well. I don't see any ambiguity here.

This is a boy-mecha that sat around for 2000 years waiting for the Blue Fairy to make him a real boy. This and the love for his mother was his only reason for existing. The Blue Fairy could not make him a real boy and his mother is dead. He shut himself down. He died. I agree with a previous poster that Teddy's reaction tells it all. David is NOT coming back.

Remember too that the Narrator is one of the advanced Mechas and the end of the movie still seems a long way off from the advanced Mechas present time and if there was any more to the story, we would have heard about it. This is an old story to the Mechas; a fable.

[Debaser]

Just a beautiful example of poetic filmmaking. I came close to crying a few times and that hasn't happened since 'Graveyard of the Fireflies'.

[sundog]

Originally posted by SMB-IL
I think the movie addresses the question most directly . . .

Forgot about that part of the narration. Thanks for clarifying.

Still, I stand by my point that despite what filmmakers say about their films, the proof is still in the pudding. Despite their best intentions, what is on the screen is what is to be evaluated.

[tanman]

I don't think it really matters. He is a robot, sorry mecha, so even if he didn't die he still didn't need to or want to function any more. The end result is the same. He doesn't continue to live, wether that is a state of being or a verb the ending is the same.

[bboisvert]

I did something with A.I. that I don't think I've ever done in my life. I watched it for the first time (on DVD) and was so blown away that when it was done, I went to the menu and watched it again. Right away.

Great movie. It definitely has it's flaws and it isn't as "tight" as, say, Jaws. But that is one of the things that I loved about it. Spielberg didn't feel the need to wrap up every single idea or plot thread. Sometimes he'd just present an idea and move on. Lots going on, lots to think about, just an amazing film.

It seems that attitudes have mellowed a bit on this... I remember a lot of people here disliking it when it first came out.

[g_i_john]

I ran away from home and rented this movie the first night I was away at a friends. Teddy was defintely the best character. Steven Spielberg always makes his movies complete, with a complete ending, he wouldn't have just left it hanging with the robot child at the bottom of the ocean, it would not have felt as complete as the ending we were given. Yeah, I don't understand why people didn't like A.I. that much. It had a really incredible feel to it. Same with Solaris.

[Suprmallet]

Originally posted by Talkin2Phil
I really enjoyed the movie, I especially liked the ending. However, AI suffers from Spielberg’s overly sentimental ‘view of the child’- too much emphasis on the fairy tale. But the themes are great; what it means to be human, what is love, what is unconditional love, is the need for love selfish, etc. It just could have been executed better. Also, the film was doomed because of the ghost of Kubrick’s mystique. IMO Teddy was the most human of all the characters.

:up: :up: Very well said.

The film as Kubrick developed it is where all the themes and ideas come from. The problem is Spielberg. As you said, Spielberg's sentimentality towards the world of children gives everything a sheen of insincerity. And things like Dr. Know and the Chris Rock robot at the robot smashing event were stupid.

As for the ending: Kubrick's ending is exactly the same as Spielberg's, with one big exception. In Kubrick's version, David doesn't "travel off into dreamland" with his fake mother. Instead, he watches the fake mother fade away at the end of the day, and spends the rest of eternity being watched by the Advanced Mechas. So you can see how, by comparison, Spielberg's ending is schmaltzy, cheesy, and lousy.

The best thing about A.I. by far was the online interactive game designed around it as a grass roots promotional tool. If Spielberg had made a film with a plot similar to that game, it could have been amazing.

[jaeufraser]

Originally posted by tanman
Dare I say it.

I actually really like a film that Baracine is gushing over?

The Mummy Returns was better!

Heh, nonetheless, AI is a movie I love, but is hurt by a right, but poorly executed ending. As written it's fine, but I just felt the way the film highlighted it as a happy ending, the way his filmmaking in the end made it feel like it was happy, denied the truth behind it. Sure, as paralell to a robot fairy tale it can be construed as a happy ending, but the viewer is not a robot, so it does not work. A cold, less mushy version of the same ending would've been much more effective.

Nonetheless, I'm still a big fan, and the good in that film far outweighs the negative, plus the mere existence of a film that really is quite different means a lot.

[g_i_john]

What was the storyline of the game?

[Suprmallet]

Originally posted by g_i_john
What was the storyline of the game?

It started with random pop-ups on sites saying "Raymond Chang is dead." (I don't remember if that's the correct name or not). When you clicked on the link, it would take you to a website that listed several deaths, and you could view autopsy pictures and get some facts about them. From there, you tried to unravel who killed him and why. From there, you went deep into an absurdly intricately detailed internet game that also involved telephone calls to certain players, group meetings, emails, and more. It was pretty revolutionary as the designers would adapt the game in real time in response to how certain players did. The people who played the game took the name "Cloudmakers" and there was even a website, now gone, called cloudmakers.org, that tracked the progress of the game as people played it. The site told you how to get through all the different parts of the game, and when it was over, it told you everything and had links to the video endings and stuff like that. It was a hell of a lot of fun and for anyone involved, it completely overshadowed the movie.

[baracine]

Originally posted by jaeufraser
A cold, less mushy version of the same ending would've been much more effective.

Interesting opinion. However, as things stand in the real world, the two reasons that kept viewers away in droves were: the rejection of the mecha child by the mother (an affront to motherhood and apple pie) and the extremely sad (i.e. not conventionally happy) ending, which all the casual know-nothing TV morning show reviewers remarked upon and warned their female viewers about.

In the final analysis, it doesn't seem to matter whether the ending is considered sad or happy: The problem is that it is sappy - pardon the bad pun. What everyone seems to agree on is that it involves sentiment or is mushy, as the detractors would have it, sentiment being the ultimate obscenity in a desensitized, post-literate, media-manipulated, brainwashed society. This "mushy" ending is also the demonstration of an intellectual point, which is another sin against convention. Needless to say, it also kept a lot of male viewers at bay.

The negative female reaction to the film, in particular, has always reminded me of the scene in François Truffaut/Ray Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451 where Montag reads a sentimental excerpt of an illegal Dickens novel to his wife Linda's airhead girlfriends [the death of David Copperfield's first wife] causing them to go into convulsions and the screaming meemees: "So much naked sentiment! Ugh! How gross! Does this guy have an OFF button?! Where's the remote?"

This reaction is typical of a society that has eliminated reflection, art and literature from its daily life and has replaced those values with the immediate gratification of made-to-measure violent spectacles and video games or soap operas, which are really object lessons in how to manipulate other people's feelings to one's own devious ends (much like so-called reality television).

[mike harnish]

(originally posted by baracine:)

"...sentiment being the untimate obscenity in a desensitized, post-literate, media-manipulated, brainwashed society."

"This reaction is typical of a society that has eliminated reflexion, art and literature from its daily life and has replaced those values with the immediate gratification of made-to-measure violent spectacles and video games."

EXACTLY!! Thanks for articulating this so well. We've become a very shallow society in these ways, and others. Very sad.

[mike harnish]

I don't know how that smiley face got there in my previous post; I didn't put it there, and it doesn't belong there.

[baracine]

Originally posted by mike harnish
I don't know how that smiley face got there in my previous post; I didn't put it there, and it doesn't belong there.

Don't apologize. I needed a smile. Hell, I need a hug!-wink-

[Actually, a colon followed by a closing bracket automatically produces a smiley face. You can push the edit button of your post and insert a space between the colon and the bracket.]

[baracine]

Another one of my all-time favourite films is Roman Polanski's Tess (1979), which just came out on DVD yesterday by the way. This film too was totally misunderstood by most reviewers of its time, mostly because of its very long-drawn set-up of an extremely emotional pay-off, which even caused one particularly unfeeling German reviewer to comment that it seemed to him to be a documentary on XIXth century agricultural techniques... (See Tess's featurettes for that one.)

[DigIt]

Originally posted by baracine
In the final analysis, it doesn't seem to matter whether the ending is considered sad or happy: The problem is that it is sappy - pardon the bad pun. What everyone seems to agree on is that it involves sentiment or is mushy, as the detractors would have it, sentiment being the ultimate obscenity in a desensitized, post-literate, media-manipulated, brainwashed society. This "mushy" ending is also the demonstration of an intellectual point, which is another sin against convention. Needless to say, it also kept a lot of male viewers at bay...

This reaction is typical of a society that has eliminated reflection, art and literature from its daily life and has replaced those values with the immediate gratification of made-to-measure violent spectacles and video games or soap operas, which are really object lessons in how to manipulate other people's feelings to one's own devious ends (much like so-called reality television). There's no need to insult people on this board with vieled comments about them being artless, desensitized, and unintelligent.

You state that soap operas are "object lessons in how to manipulate other people's feelings to one's own devious ends." So, for a soap opera it's "devious," but for Spielberg it's a brave choice that flies in the face of "brainwashed society." Why the double standard?

[das Monkey]

• bboisvert •

It seems that attitudes have mellowed a bit on this... I remember a lot of people here disliking it when it first came out.
I'm one of those people. While I didn't really like the ending that much, it wasn't about the ending; and I'm one of those people who laughed when I heard others thought the Mechas were aliens, because it didn't even cross my mind. I've written so much about this movie in the past that I'm not going to rehash it all here, but one of my main problems with it is that it's so clearly the work of two minds, two minds that IMO don't belong together. So many times we'd start down the path of something intriguing and then get smacked over the head with sentamentality. It was a very frustrating experience, and the whole thing just felt insincere. The absolute worst thing I can say about a film like this is that it was neither challenging nor thought-provoking. For many films, that's fine; for this one, however, it was devastating. I should clarify that this film is certainly not devoid of thought, because artificial intelligence as a concept is inherently thought-provoking; the film, however, added nothing to this IMO and in some cases detracted.

I fully accept that my opinion may be skewed by my expectations. I wanted something that would really make me think, and this just wasn't that kind of movie. It tried to act like that movie, but that's not what it was. I also accept that I'm a <i>very</i> tough critic when it comes to science fiction, particularly when Spielberg is involved. In recent years, I've found myself wondering if Spielberg doesn't understand the complexities of his topics or if he thinks the audience won't understand them, so he dumbs it down for us. Either way, I find myself not liking his work in the genre as much as others. I don't like to be treated like an idiot, and I feel he's doing this in films like <b>A.I.</b> and <b>Minority Report</b>. The guy is so amazingly talented in so many ways, and I can easily understand why so many people love these films, but they just rub me the wrong way.

I don't know what Kubrick would have done, and I think it's silly to assert that it would have been "exactly the same" or "completely opposite" or whatever as justification for an opinion. I do know, however, that it would have been <i>different</i>. How much so I do not know, but I suspect even if in subtle ways, his film would have left me thinking about it when I exited the theater. That's neither here nor there, though, as we'll never really know that reality. What I do know is that this film suffers greatly from that confusion. Kubrick's mark is all over this film, and you can see the points where Spielberg grabs it and drags it somewhere else. I'm not saying one is <i>better</i> than the other, just that they are too different from one another, and the end result just doesn't work. The final product is a work that is confused about what it wants to be and is trying to accomplish.

As a site note, I thought this film had some of the best acting of the year. While I didn't like it, I was blown away by the performances.

It's really tragic that Kubrick never got to finish this film. I have no idea what it would have become, but I would have liked to have the chance to see it anyway.

das

[jaeufraser]

Originally posted by baracine
Interesting opinion. However, as things stand in the real world, the two reasons that kept viewers away in droves were: the rejection of the mecha child by the mother (an affront to motherhood and apple pie) and the extremely sad (i.e. not conventionally happy) ending, which all the casual know-nothing TV morning show reviewers remarked upon and warned their female viewers about.

In the final analysis, it doesn't seem to matter whether the ending is considered sad or happy: The problem is that it is sappy - pardon the bad pun. What everyone seems to agree on is that it involves sentiment or is mushy, as the detractors would have it, sentiment being the ultimate obscenity in a desensitized, post-literate, media-manipulated, brainwashed society. This "mushy" ending is also the demonstration of an intellectual point, which is another sin against convention. Needless to say, it also kept a lot of male viewers at bay.


You see though, for many it doesn't have to do with it being sappy. It has to do with it being sappy which seems like a betrayal of what's going on. How can the film have one attitude, when very clearly what's happening does not match the tone that the director is using? I have no issue with some heart in a film, and I love Spielberg uses it to good effect. But it felt completely out of place in this ending, as if they had a cold ending, and then layered this happy tone atop it to mitigate the negative feelings that would arise if they were to highlight the actual meaning of what was happening. Ask yourself this...if Kubrick had made this film, does anyone think he would've made the ending like that? Yes, storywise it would've been, but it hardly would've played the heartstrings on something that...well...isn't happy. I believe I see what Spielberg was trying to do...he made a robot fairy tale, and in that it IS very interesting. My main issue is that, since the audience are not robots, it becomes impossible for me to relate to this "upbeat" ending when it seems completely at odds with how I feel about it. Sap is fine, if done well and used at appropriate times. The ending of this film...it did not feel appropriate. Still a great film, very unique, but a directing change in the end could've made a world of difference. Hell, just a MUSIC change in the end could've made a difference, with a little less of the soft narration. But that's my opinion, when I see a film I really like, I will often come up with ways that would've fixed the little things I did not.

[baracine]

Originally posted by DigIt
You state that soap operas are "object lessons in how to manipulate other people's feelings to one's own devious ends." So, for a soap opera it's "devious," but for Spielberg it's a brave choice that flies in the face of "brainwashed society." Why the double standard?

I meant that in TV soap operas, the refuge of supposedly "sentimental" women, the characters are devious and try to control each other all the time, which is not the case with the main character in A.I., who is tragically sincere.

[Suprmallet]

Originally posted by das Monkey
I'm one of those people. While I didn't really like the ending that much, it wasn't about the ending; and I'm one of those people who laughed when I heard others thought the Mechas were aliens, because it didn't even cross my mind. I've written so much about this movie in the past that I'm not going to rehash it all here, but one of my main problems with it is that it's so clearly the work of two minds, two minds that IMO don't belong together. So many times we'd start down the path of something intriguing and then get smacked over the head with sentamentality. It was a very frustrating experience, and the whole thing just felt insincere. The absolute worst thing I can say about a film like this is that it was neither challenging nor thought-provoking. For many films, that's fine; for this one, however, it was devastating. I should clarify that this film is certainly not devoid of thought, because artificial intelligence as a concept is inherently thought-provoking; the film, however, added nothing to this IMO and in some cases detracted.

I fully accept that my opinion may be skewed by my expectations. I wanted something that would really make me think, and this just wasn't that kind of movie. It tried to act like that movie, but that's not what it was. I also accept that I'm a <i>very</i> tough critic when it comes to science fiction, particularly when Spielberg is involved. In recent years, I've found myself wondering if Spielberg doesn't understand the complexities of his topics or if he thinks the audience won't understand them, so he dumbs it down for us. Either way, I find myself not liking his work in the genre as much as others. I don't like to be treated like an idiot, and I feel he's doing this in films like <b>A.I.</b> and <b>Minority Report</b>. The guy is so amazingly talented in so many ways, and I can easily understand why so many people love these films, but they just rub me the wrong way.

I don't know what Kubrick would have done, and I think it's silly to assert that it would have been "exactly the same" or "completely opposite" or whatever as justification for an opinion. I do know, however, that it would have been <i>different</i>. How much so I do not know, but I suspect even if in subtle ways, his film would have left me thinking about it when I exited the theater. That's neither here nor there, though, as we'll never really know that reality. What I do know is that this film suffers greatly from that confusion. Kubrick's mark is all over this film, and you can see the points where Spielberg grabs it and drags it somewhere else. I'm not saying one is <i>better</i> than the other, just that they are too different from one another, and the end result just doesn't work. The final product is a work that is confused about what it wants to be and is trying to accomplish.

As a site note, I thought this film had some of the best acting of the year. While I didn't like it, I was blown away by the performances.

It's really tragic that Kubrick never got to finish this film. I have no idea what it would have become, but I would have liked to have the chance to see it anyway.

das

Best post in the entire thread. Thank you for saying everything I wanted to say.