Film-Tech Cinema Systems
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Community   » Film Handlers' Movie Reviews   » A.I. (Page 1)

 
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
Author Topic: A.I.
Bobby Henderson
"Ask me about Trajan."

Posts: 10973
From: Lawton, OK, USA
Registered: Apr 2001


 - posted 06-29-2001 07:40 PM      Profile for Bobby Henderson   Email Bobby Henderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Steven Spielberg's new film, "A.I. - Artificial Intelligence" is a pretty good, thought provoking film. I liked it quite a lot, but I don't think it is going to go over well with everyone. Sure, this movie has lots of trippy visual effects. Lots of people have seen fleeting shots of an ocean flooded New York and the wildly lighted Rogue City in the trailers. However, this is not the typical Spielberg science fiction/fantasy film that delivers lots of thrills and tearjerker endings. I think Spielberg attempted to make the film he thought Stanley Kubrick would have made.

The film has that cold, matter of fact kind of touch to it common with some of Kubrick's films. The premise is pretty simple, a scientific team led by Professor Hobby (William Hurt) set out to create a new leap forward in robotic technology by developing a boy robot (or "mecca") that "can love". There is little moral questioning about whether the scientists should try achieving this technological feat. Nearly two years later, the team achieves a certain level of success and places the robot, David (Haley Joel Osment) with a candidate family whose own biological son is cryogenically frozen in a coma waiting on a cure for some terrible disease or something. The film explores how David's relationship with his "parents" (played by Sam Robards and Francis O'Connor) plays out.

The film goes from the fragile balance in this family setting to a more menacing and interesting environment where David meets up with robots who search through junk piles for missing parts. Jude Law plays Gigolo Joe, a "love mecca" robot that hustles lonely women. His is one of the more interesting characters, particularly in that he comes with his own background music. His character also provides a source of inspiration on why there are "Flesh Fairs" where robots are put on display to be destroyed in all sorts of cruel methods for the screaming mobs of people in the stands. One of the characters I liked the most was "Teddy", a very technologically advanced Teddy Bear who seems more reasonable that even most of the humans in the film.

The latter part of "A.I." is where most viewers will either be won over by the film or just check out and hope the credits happen soon. I noticed varying reactions to the film's final act. Valid arguments can be made for having a better drawn resolution with David's human family and the emotional connections there. Instead, the film takes some very bold chances with the storyline. But I think the film is actually pretty clever in using that to raise all kinds of open ended questions about whether a robot can really love at all. Does David really mean it when he prays over and over again to become a real boy so he will be better loved, or is he just parroting a looping runtime routine in an artificially obsessive manner? Some of the points in the film even suggest that many of us humans really don't get it at all when the subject of love comes up. That point is suggested by love meccas who are really not much more than overly glorified masturbatory sex toys. It is suggested by Professor Hobby, who seems to think a robotic child could fill the void left by the loss of a real human child. Does David really know how to love or is his programming just searching for anything, no matter how artificial, just to fit the purpose? Probably the best thing to do when seeing "A.I." is to go in with an open mind not filled with presumed expectations.

 |  IP: Logged

JC Cowles
Film Handler

Posts: 77
From: St. Paul, MN
Registered: Jun 2001


 - posted 06-30-2001 03:49 AM      Profile for JC Cowles   Email JC Cowles   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I loved teddy. Although he reminded me of a Teddy Rupskin who swallowed a Speak-N-Spell, I found him to be a bit of comic relief in an otherwise serious movie. Personally, I was not a big fan of this movie. I felt no emotion towards the Mecca boy and neither for his human mother. There were too many times in the movie where the story jumped to somewhere and didn't explain how it got there.

AI reminded me of way too many other movies. I was waiting for Kevin Costner to float by in the opening scene, Teddy reminded me of an ewok, especially when running through the woods. When Teddy, Joe and David fly into the sunken New York City, I wanted to scream "You Dirty Apes!" And the "moon" reminded me of the space ship of Close Encounters (with John Williams on the payroll, I was waiting for those familiar musical notes).

The visual effects were spectacular eye-candy, however Janusz Kaminski, the cinematographer, seems to have a thing for framing the characters of AI in circles or ovals. It actually started to bug me.

Personally, I think Spielberg should've taken Amblin and company over to Universal and done the third installment of Jurassic Park. But I think it'll be interesting to see if JS3 beats AI in the box office next month.


 |  IP: Logged

Ian Price
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1714
From: Denver, CO
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 06-30-2001 03:56 PM      Profile for Ian Price   Email Ian Price   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I went to the 10:50 PM show at the Rohnert Park 16 in the next town 8 miles south of me. Although I knew I would have to pay $8.25 instead of getting in on a pass, I went there because that was the latest showtime and I know the presentation would be good and that it would be a lot less crowded. It was good. I am still unsure what I thought of the film itself. I did think it was long and just a bit boring. But I also thought it was very thought provoking. Thought provoking is good in a work of art and a film.

The first thing that was interesting was the statement by the young lady at the conference table at the beginning of the film. She stated that 'Great, you can get a machine to love a person, but can you get a person to love a machine?' People love machines all the time. Otherwise there wouldn't be a classic car craze in this country. But I understand that it might not be the same. I am just saying that the concept isn't a foreign as one might think.

Isaac Asimov wrote his Robotic Laws before anybody had ever built a robot. I think the film kept these laws in mind but didn't let them interfere with the telling of the story. If these laws were enacted in the story, then people should have been a lot more comfortable living around the robots.

1. A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.

2. A robot must obey the orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the first law.

3. A robot must protect its own existence, as long as this does not conflict with the first two laws.

So with these laws in place and the couple being scientists as well, why did they never take the kid back to the manufacture to discover the root of his actions. I can see this future as having a new profession. Cyborg Counseling. 'Bring your Mecca in for counseling. Have him reprogrammed in to a newer fresher unit. We will eradicate all aberrant behavioral problems. Guaranteed success or your money back.'

The next conundrum was that the kid never grew up. Wasn't it interesting that he was made never to grow up? Most interesting movie characters are ones that grow in some way throughout the film. Sometimes they come to a startling conclusion at the end of the film as well. The Doctor/Inventor at the end of the film was amazed at David's growth, but I was less impressed. Sure David was able to overcome obstacles in his way and find his way back to the lab. But was that growth? Some computer programs can already change and adapt as the need arises. I didn't see any growth in the kid that wasn't inconsistent to a computer adapting it's program to changing conditions.

Most parents say that the most fulfilling part of raising children is watching them grow up. Sure they give lip service to wanting them to remain a child forever. And which of us hasn't thought that it would be great if kittens never became cats. But the magic of kittens and children is that they grow up. My mother loved me, but she didn't decide to like me until I became an adult. She loved the changes and growth I made in my twenties as much or more than she enjoyed the cute, blond, well behaved 8-year-old. It was just the years in-between she didn't care for much.

The closest I thought David showed to human emotion was when he apparently committed suicide when he discovered that he wasn't unique. I am still wrestling with that. It would have been an interesting film if it had ended there. After that he just became stuck in a feedback loop like any stupid computer. He spent 2,000 years looking at a statue. A human, even without outside influence, would have changed and adapted in that time. So after 2,000 years David didn't have one new thought. He didn't show any curiosity towards the extraordinary beings that discovered him. I would have found it fulfilling to try, in my limited way, to impart my knowledge of humanity on them. Instead, David just wants to hear his mommy tell him that she loves him. I'm not buying it. So David is programmed for love and self preservation, but where are all the other emotions,

Also, that was one hell of a fuel cell in the David and Teddy or perhaps that tap on the head is a real high tech way of recharging his batteries. We eat for fuel, David should have to plug his ass in. I don't think even an atomic reactor would run for 2,000 years.

I was also perturbed by the perceived notion that everybody wants children. I am surrounded by a large group of people who specifically do not want children. The world did just fine for a couple of thousand years with a population equal or less than what the United States has now. If the population were to drop by 5 billion, I can only imagine that the world would be a better place. But I am sure airline tickets would be more expensive.

So my favorite character was Teddy. It seemed as though Teddy was a more complex character than David. Teddy seemed to be able to switch his loyalties from the real boy to David and then never let go. Teddy seemed to have a conscience even though I suppose that could be programmed. What a cool toy for a kid, a toy that keeps the kid out of danger and provides right and wrong responses for the kid. Most toys, and that is what Teddy is, would consider being placed in a box as the end of the day routine and shut down. But no, not Teddy, he struggles and fights to get back to David. He even seems to be able to perceive Danger. The action and responses he showed towards David could even be called love, such as the love shown towards a person by a dog or a cat.

I also enjoyed the futuristic cars and the cybercopter.

So was AI a great movie, no. But it was a thought provoking one, and that is better than a sharp stick in the eye.


 |  IP: Logged

Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 07-01-2001 03:58 PM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I'll give _A.I._ ** (two-stars)

It looks like Steven Spielberg sat down and watched 2001:ASO and memorized the "Kubrick Look" then was given the story that resembles Bicentinial Man and tried to morph the story with the style. If Steven wanted to shoot AI because it is a story he wanted to do (regardless of the Kubrick factor) then he should have done it on his own and left Stanley out (the "In Memory of Stanley Kubrick" dedication at the end is fine).

Steven nor anyone else can make a Stanley Kubrick film...filming is like all other arts, you can imitate them but you can't copy origination! It would be like telling a songwriter to make a "Beatles song"...sure they could use existing music to make something that sounds like it but it wouldn't be based on original thought.

With Stanley Kubrick films (like em or not) there is always more to the film than what is on the surface...with AI I get the feeling that if it wasn't explained to us (the viewer) then it really isn't there. In fact, the ending is something Stanley probably would not have done...Stanley doesn't tend to tie things up neatly like that...he normally leaves you with your mind wondering. A lot of people don't like his films as a result of this "technique." Probably one of the reason Steven Spielberg films are popular is his puts a clear ending on his films as he did on this one. In fact, the ending seems to be the BIG Steven Spielberg contribution and lo and behold that last reel has most of the people I've talked to in an uproar (most I've spoken with said the film would have been better without it).

In case you haven't gathered, I like Stanley Kubrick's filming style (not necessarily all of his movies but I find his films very intriquing to watch). I don't think Steven Spielberg has near the depth of Stanley and consquently I don't think he can really pull-off that style of film. Steven's films are a vastly different style and a bit more wild. Steven is certainly successful in his trade though I think he is given more credit for direction than I think he deserves. For me, Steven's best film was Raiders of the Lost Ark.

I guess this wasn't so much a review of the film as a commentary of Steven Spielberg's directorial style.

Somehow, I don't think Stanley Kubrick would have approved of his name being associated with this film except in memory.

Steve (the other one)

------------------
"Old projectionists never die, they just changeover!"

 |  IP: Logged

James R. Hammonds, Jr
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 931
From: Houston, TX, USA
Registered: Nov 2000


 - posted 07-02-2001 04:00 AM      Profile for James R. Hammonds, Jr   Email James R. Hammonds, Jr   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Teddy reminded me of HAL from 2001

 |  IP: Logged

Jerry Chase
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1068
From: Margate, FL, USA
Registered: Nov 2000


 - posted 07-08-2001 04:39 PM      Profile for Jerry Chase   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I left the theatre with the same feeling I'd have if I had asked for salmon and been served nicely done catfish instead, dissatisfied but not overly upset.

Some random thoughts:
The Amblin moon was a bit too much. I was waiting for the mecha to ride or fly in front of it on a bicycle.

Kubrick was known for his wooden characters that resemble chess pieces more than real people. Floyd in 2K1 was one example. The characters in this film had a similar feel until the last reel, which I suspect is part of the reason for the complaints of dissonance.

The no-blink routine and hype was silly. Cleaning lenses can be important and blinking is a simple method of accomplishing it.

The eating food damaging the inner workings because there was no stomach pouch was another technical silliness used for plot advancement. Similarly, the head crick music was an affront to the suspension of disbelief.

I agree that the suicide ending was probably the original intent of the author. Good sci-fi often leaves on such a note.

At one point, I thought for sure the blue angel was going to be the Statue of Liberty and we were going the "Planet of the Apes" route all the way. The reference to "blue angel" was distracting in another way, because it kept reminding me of Deitrich.

Why do aliens have to be slinky humanforms a-la "Abyss?" "Forbidden Planet" had a much more original approach with an implied alien shape that had a huge gut. Aliens are stereotyped by today's directors.

Overall, the film is a mishmash of cliches, with some technical effects added for visual interest. I left wondering who the intended audience was.



 |  IP: Logged

Greg Mueller
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1687
From: Port Gamble, WA
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 07-15-2001 12:47 PM      Profile for Greg Mueller   Author's Homepage   Email Greg Mueller   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Last time I saw a Spielberg film I swore I'd never go to another one. Guess I forgot. Ok this time for sure.

I'll never go to another Spielberg film.

The following are some observations I have of what could have been a great film if Kubrick had done it

Way too long.
Obviously he couldn't figure out an ending and just kept adding on more scenes until he just gave up.
The constant commercializing was nauseating.
The big moon thing, made me want to through something at the screen
I'm not going to buy a teddy bear whether its in a Star Wars film or an ET, I mean AI film.
Spielberg obviously watched the most famous and popular of Kubrick's films and though he could get everyone to believe that he, as a director, is in the same vein as Kubrick if he "borrowed" some of them. Puke.
There are some incredible inconsistencies in the story line, one of which is... The futurismo droids can read David's entire mind and create every single detail of his home and environment down to the last detail, and inject it into his brain except for mommy? Huh?
There were a lot of great scenes in the film. But, they were only that, great scenes. If you just watch them alone it would have been an interesting collection of great scenes, but not a great movie. It makes me wonder if Spielberg watched the movie before it was released.
And, in some respects this reminds me of Ed Wood. He sees on the screen what he wanted it to be like, not what it is.
SS tries to hard to make "block busters" he should be trying to make "good films" instead. Those are the ones that BECOME block busters.

I seriously seriously doubt that Kubrick "picked" Spielberg for this work. I think more likely Spielberg thought this might be a way to ride on the coat tails of a great director and gain fame (legacy) if not the much sought after Oscar he has been trying to get his peers to award him

------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut http://www.muellersatomics.com/


 |  IP: Logged

Greg Anderson
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 766
From: Ogden Valley, Utah
Registered: Nov 1999


 - posted 07-16-2001 12:56 AM      Profile for Greg Anderson   Author's Homepage   Email Greg Anderson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I found an interesting article a few weeks ago analyzing the state of Spielberg (and I've already plagiarized it, I suppose). The writer has some real insight.
http://www.aintitcool.com/display.cgi?id=9385

 |  IP: Logged

John Wilson
Film God

Posts: 5438
From: Sydney, Australia.
Registered: Dec 1999


 - posted 07-16-2001 05:09 AM      Profile for John Wilson   Email John Wilson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Greg wrote...
>>I think more likely Spielberg thought this might be a way to ride on the coat tails of a great director and gain fame (legacy) if not the much sought after Oscar he has been trying to get his peers to award him<<

Do you think he needs more fame? I don't. He is singularly the most well known director if not most well known person working in films today. As for the oscar thing, I believe he's over that part. He has two. One for Schindler's List and one for Saving Private Ryan.

I'm looking forward to this film. I hope I am not disappointed.

(Although now that I know the ending!!! from reading this thread (The term 'Spoilers Ahead' is a good way of letting someone know to avoid that review, by the way) I guess there's one less surprise I'll be in for.)

------------------
"If you think THIS is fantastic...wait until you see the full effect with the HIMP!"
- Chief Inspector Clouseau.

 |  IP: Logged

Greg Mueller
Phenomenal Film Handler

Posts: 1687
From: Port Gamble, WA
Registered: Jun 99


 - posted 07-16-2001 10:07 AM      Profile for Greg Mueller   Author's Homepage   Email Greg Mueller   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
John
Although the ending has been suggested it has not been explained and when you see the movie you'll know what I mean. However by the time the end comes you'll be wishing it had come sooner.

"Schindler's List" never saw it. Spielberg, once again making the jewish statement is even more boring than his ultra predictable, formulaic, fodder films.

"Saving Private Ryan" I didn't see Spielberg's heavy handedness in this film which leads me to believe that he was not the driving force behind it's direction. I think he got the award but I think someone else was resposible for the creative aspects of it. Either that or he was having some kind of mental lapse to the days when he made good film. Also there were no smarmy teddy bear/old yeller characters which makes me extremely suspicious.
I'd suggest to anyone who has not seen it to save your money and wait for it on HBO. You won't miss a thing on the small screen and you'll get a months worth of potentially GOOD movies for the same price as the theater ticket.

P.S. I hoped I would not be dissapointed also. I was hoping that somehow Kubrick's influence would come shining (!) through. I feel suckered.
------------------
Greg Mueller
Amateur Astronomer, Machinist, Filmnut http://www.muellersatomics.com/


 |  IP: Logged

Arthur Allen
Film Handler

Posts: 99
From: Renton, WA, USA
Registered: Aug 2001


 - posted 08-11-2001 11:34 PM      Profile for Arthur Allen   Author's Homepage   Email Arthur Allen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
A few days after seeing this movie, I realized how much Teddy resembled Marvin from Douglas Adams' Hitchhiker's Guide To the Galaxy, especially the radio series. Both androids/meccas speak in an emotionless monotone, and both went forward through long periods of time the long way.

I can't find the thread where members mentioned how A. I. seemed to be presented poorly in big auditoriums, but it happened to me too. I went to see it at Seattle's Cinerama theater, and noticed that it must have been in SDDS because of it frequently reverted to the backup track. By the last 15 minutes of the movie, it dropped to the alternate and stayed there. Music sounded like it was being played through a digital cell phone, and it was very distracting. It was so bad that I saw another patron complain to someone waiting to clean the theater, though the other patron thought it was a speaker that had blown out. Too bad; The Cinerama is about the last THX theater left in the Seattle area.

 |  IP: Logged

Dave Williams
Wet nipple scene

Posts: 1836
From: Salt Lake City, UT, USA
Registered: Jan 2000


 - posted 08-25-2001 05:19 AM      Profile for Dave Williams   Author's Homepage   Email Dave Williams   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Time for my two cents...

Personally, I loved the film. I am not a speilberg fan, and I was upset to hear he was doing it. I wanted Alex Proyas of The Crow and Dark City to get the helm on that. Senior Speilbergo just doesnt have the cajones to do this kind of material.

My critical thoughts,

1. The film is too long. By fifteen minutes.

2. The narration at the end is not needed, and is a distraction.

3. The aliens look like the aliens from close encounters. I guess they came back.

4. The film is truly a work of art. It is easier to appreciate it if it were in a gallery instead of a movie theater. 40 years from now it will be one of those classics. Most people didnt get the films that we now call classics. It takes about 40 years for people to figure out what the hell was the director doing anyway.

Dave.

 |  IP: Logged

Per Hauberg
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 883
From: Malling, Denmark
Registered: Jul 2000


 - posted 09-24-2001 07:06 PM      Profile for Per Hauberg   Author's Homepage   Email Per Hauberg   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
A.I. is boring --and that's it !

Mr. Kubrick's films were mostly good stuff - and to stay with the obvious relation, -the "boring" parts of "2001" got a lift in being pure beauty to look at. A.I. could have had the same lift, but is grainy like hell.

Mr. Spielberg is often very entertaining, and if anybody claim to have seen E.T. without just a teenie tear in the eye, i believe, they're not telling the truth.

A.I. mostly is just repeating what we have seen before - like those Close Encounter aliens, and will sell tickets on the names behind - and that only... I feel, this is as much "let's make the same money once more" as was "Close Encounter" second time out (Special Edition).

/ p.


 |  IP: Logged

Kristin Wahlund
Film Handler

Posts: 92
From: Eagan, MN
Registered: Jul 2001


 - posted 09-25-2001 07:11 AM      Profile for Kristin Wahlund   Email Kristin Wahlund   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I thought that this movie could have ended about ten different times and still made the same impact on the audience. It was two and a half hours and it felt like it! Other than that, I thought teddy was awesome, definetly gets an award from me.

 |  IP: Logged

Michael Gonzalez
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 790
From: Grand Island , NE USA
Registered: Sep 2000


 - posted 09-25-2001 03:18 PM      Profile for Michael Gonzalez   Email Michael Gonzalez   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Those Close Encounter "Aliens" in AI are suppose to be robots.

 |  IP: Logged



All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2 
 
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.