Artificial Intelligence: AI

One of my favorites. Should be a 10 man!

Hi Spike, there were enough moments of disbelievability for me to drop from a 10 - still, it’s a great great movie.. I’ll put those in the meatspace as well.

I didn’t like it very much. The plot kind of gradually fell apart. It left me wondering if people would care about Pinocchio if he had stayed a wooden puppet? I know that I wouldn’t. I thought that the cinematography was very nice even thought the sets were kind of cliche at times. David was really just a result of bad programming. Haley Joel Osment and Jude Law are excellent in this though. I don’t hate A.I., I just don’t care enough about the characters to like it.

I really wish Kubrick could have made the film before he died, it might have been deserving of a 10 instead of an 8.

AI is a terribly inconsistent film. As you’ve mentioned, it bears the hallmarks of both Kubrick and Spielberg creations- and these characteristics do indeed produce some rather spectacular clashes throughout the film. The first part- one that, despite its subdued visual aspects entertained me the most- is a realistically told story which, even though it happens in idyllic family home settings, never loses a sense of tension and fear, fear of how will the rejected artificial mind react to the resentment, and sometimes even thinly-velied disgust, that surrounds him. In that part, the young android feels truly menacing despite its innocuous appearance. We don’t know what will happen next, but suspect something wicked… yet in a dramatic change of mood, the film suddenly lapses into a fanciful robot fairy tale, at which point all the tension and excitement goes pushing up daisies. Nevermind the flamboyant replicant acting, grotesque and bombastic visuals- the whole thing is simply turned on its head. From the engaging believability of the first part we now turn to stuff that is completely surreal and cheesy to the point of being ridiculous in places. Worse still, all this bizarre, convoluted tale of flooded cityscapes, sex-slave mecha and cyber-circus festivity ends up in an utter mess of an ending, a visual explosion of random imagery which fits in with the rest of the film so badly it must have been attached with litres of superglue and miles of gaffer tape.

Yet what bothers me the most is that this film did in fact make it here at all. Even forgetting its outlandish Clockwork-Orange-meets-Jurassic-Park-meets-Home-Alone paranoid schizophrenia, it just does not FEEL cyberpunk. Cyberpunk films tend to exude negativity, tension, paranoia, defiance- in other words they don’t usually resempble children’s bedtime stories, which this film clearly does. It just doesn’t FEEL right, it does not have a cyberpunk ATMOSPHERE- this elusive but crucial criterion- and feels completely at odds here despite loads of high-tech robotics involved and all this.

Which is to say that I really didn’t like it, visually impressive as it was, and while I would never call it a flop, neither would I name it a masterpiece. It is caught in the void inbetween, a purgatory where all confused and mediocre efforts must end. If only the whole film followed the feel of the first half hour or so, it might have been very different… but no, not even the furry teddy-bear droid can save this one for me.

Well, I, for one, agree with the majority of your review. I think this is a terribly underrated film. Throughout most of it I was thinking that, if it hadn’t made several missteps, it might be the best film of the year. Teddy is also my favorite character in the film. His low, grumbly voice came across as almost creepy for most of the film, making him more than just a “cute animal sidekick.” There was something very knowing about him, as if he had a sinister side. Unlike you, however, I found the Flesh Fair to be the strongest scene in the film. It more-or-less sums up the entire storyline, if you think about it…and it’s some of the most daring material Spielberg has ever put to film. I’d go so far as to say it’s one of the best cyberpunk scenes ever committed to celluloid. I’ll never forget how all the children in the audience, whose parents brought them to this thinking it would be a cute sci-fi fairy tale, were freaking out and crying during that scene. I am a bit of a masochist, so…perhaps that’s why I enjoyed this particular scene so much.

I have to agree with the majority, however, that Kubrick would have done it better. This was his brainchild, give or take, and his vision DOESN’T completely mesh with Spielberg’s, unfortunately. I’ll tred carefully as to not go into spoiler territory, to respect your wishes, and just say that I DIDN’T feel the ending work. In fact, as stated in a previous post, the last 20 minutes could have been shaved off easily and not only would it not have affected the film, but I feel it would have made it stronger. This was just crying out for a patented Kubrick ironic or disturbing finish…not Spielberg’s…well…whatever that was.

Regardless, as with other films like BLADE RUNNER and THE MATRIX, whether people like them or not, I’m afraid that it just doesn’t get much more cyberpunk than this. I thought it was excellent…and yet the thoroughly mediocre MINORITY REPORT, which was vastly-less daring and original, gets all the attention. What a world…

Hi Case, just to make sure - I see you have registered in the meatspace forums, but haven’t made any posts - did your confirmation email get to you - meaning can you post?

Regarding the conversation - yes, AI definitely is one of those movies that doesn’t lend itself to consensus. Some like Spike love while others such as Illusivemind absolutely hate it, and yet others still such as Metatron and DeadImpulse find it a complete mixed bag of mediocre fare. My guess after participating in many a conversation about this movie is that everyone has valid and defensible positions. There’s clearly many reasons to be put off by the movie, but just as possible, one could be blown away by its magesty.

Regarding whether this is cyberpunk or not, to me, I agree with Case in that I don’t see how this could be passed over. We have a world where androids are sentient (but unfeeling except for in the case of David), but have no rights. This sets up a pretty extreme tension. We have a world where technology run rampant has led to a mass breakdown of society so that it only exists in idealized form in pockets, and furthermore, the movie focuses on an android trying to decipher the meaning of love and humanity. Whether or not we think it’s well done, it certainly deserves to be listed here - the cyberpunk visuals only serve to punctuate this.

By the way, if I had to take a stab at why AI failed right out of the gates, I’d point to the trailers. Take a gander at these if you haven’t seen them in a while - they are intensely boring.

Well put. You could even go so far as to say that it’s the exact same theme as in BLADE RUNNER (a film none will argue against being considered cyberpunk). David and Roy Batty are both synthetic humans struggling to exist in a world that no longer wants them. Lest we forget that RUNNER had a legions of detractors back in the day, as well.

And, no, I never received my password…hence why I’ve never posted.

I don’t think Blade Runner really follows a pinocchio theme, but both films definitely deal with sentient man-made creations looking for ways to obtain the same rights as humans. This is a pretty stronly recurring cyberpunk theme.

Also, I mailed you info to get into the meatspace.

Case, in Blade Runner our protagonist is Rick Deckard who we presume is a human therefore we can identify with him. Even the replicants are cyborgs who have free choice. But in A.I. David is 100% android, he’s programmed to love who he thinks is his mother so he does what he has to do to execute his program. I see a large gap between a cyborg capable of free thought and an android whose intellect is completely dependant on a program. That is why I care about the replicants and not David.

DeadImpulse, David is hard-wired to “love” his mother but his actions are hardly dependant on a program. Professor Hobby’s speech at the end captures this perfectly. David engaged in all sorts of incredibly creative behaviors in order to pursue a course of his devising that he thought might get him to his intended outcome (again, of his devising). His assessment of why he was thrown out (becausse he wasn’t a real boy) was also his. The only thing that the program did in guiding his behavior was make him all consumed with loving his mother and wanting love in return.

“The only thing that the program did in guiding his behavior was make him all consumed with loving his mother and wanting love in return.”

Exactly my point he had no choice, his love was as artificial as he was. He could have been made to love anyone or anything, she wasn’t actually his mother after all.

Hmm, this sounds like an indictment you can level at any android who does not have the ability to change their programming. I’m not sure how this is much of an indictment though - the rest of his actions were entirely his own in pursuing the goal. He still had freewill in the sense that he could have accepted his misery and lived in the city as Tokyo Joe had suggested. Did you have a problem with Tokyo Joe? After all, he didn’t have this type of goal-directed behavior.

I have a problem with all androids being thought of as anything more than a machine. And I don’t believe that he had the free will to do anything because the only way I would know that is if he made a different choice. Yes my thoughts and feelings about David apply to all androids real or fictional. An emulation of humanity is just that, do you believe in the possibility of a sentient android? I don’t so therefore my belief influences how I view this film.

Sorry to double post. This is an interesting conversation but if I’ve lead you to believe that this is the main reason that I don’t like the film then I haven’t been truthful. I just don’t think it’s a very good film.

Hi DeadImpulse, thanks for the clarification. I don’t know that I agree with your position on androids, but that’s probably a far larger debate than this movie (sounds like a juicy conversation for the meatspace). And yeah, I get that you don’t think it’s a good movie besides. Many feel that way. Again, AI is one of those that has people right across the board. Some hate it, some love it, many are in-between.

I was totally and utterly disappointed with this film… my thoughts on the details almost mirror those already posted by Metatron, so I won’t go into detail… and I don’t see it “coming back” like Blade Runner, SFAM - while BR was way ahead of its time, and suffered from the cheesy theatrical edition, A.I. is simply - nowhere. And all over the place at the same time. As for the people who like it - the arguments made in its defense seem forced just like the Matrix sequels’ discussions: while it all sounds great and makes sense, the movie itself is far from telling the story it was supposed to tell in a way that would make it a successful effort.

I dunno Budo, calling someone else’s reasons for liking a film as being “forced” sounds a bit odd to me. This almost indicates that you think people really think deep down that it sucks but want to try to defend it for alterior reasons. I don’t think this makes sense either with AI or with the Matrix sequels for that matter. Also, I think it’s probably a bit rough to compare AI to Blade Runner, a movie which pretty much set the genre. I don’t think anyone is saying AI is in the same ballpark as Blade Runner either as a movie or in potential long term influence.

EDIT: But I do certainly agree that my rating on this film, whatever it was, would not represent a consensus. Some here would clearly give AI 4 stars, while others would give it 10.

BTW…SFAM. I thought Jude Law’s character was named Gigolo Joe? Am I wrong?

I don’t know about it being forced. If I didn’t love the movie I wouldn’t defend it unless Steve-0 was sending me a check. I just find the film endlessly fascinating and visually stunning.

Hi Spike, thanks for the catch. I have no idea why I put Tokyo Joe instead of Giglo Joe. I was so sure of this I even just checked back to the “Gigilo Joe, what do you know” scene to make sure he was never called Tokyo.

*Feels old age approaching*

Sorry if my comments were not clear enough - I didn’t mean forced as in defending a bad movie by forcing meaning on it… I was thinking more in terms of dissecting a movie’s inner workings and finding meaning after a lot of deliberation and pondering. SFAM, I don’t find your conclusions and musings on either Matrix sequels or A.I., but I do strongly believe that one of the biggest failures in all of them is precisely the fact that they don’t do a good job with the narrative - a huge majority of viewers has no way of figuring out nowhere near enough of the finer workings of either films’ worlds UPON VIEWING THEM, and even multiple viewings. Is it too much focus on visuals? Perhaps. But it’s not that simple, and finding the true reasons would require about as much cranial gymnastics it took SFAM to decypher the Matrix sequels.

Common Budo, Cranial gymnastics are fun!

Actually, yes, I do really enjoy obscure movies - ones which require multiple viewings to appreciate. I FULLY get that others hate this trait, and consider it bad movie making besides. That’s a fine position to take and I have no problem with that - but I disagree. Specifically, I disagree with a convention that says all narratives should be crystal clear upon first viewing - I also disagree that the intent of all movie makers should be that the majority of the viewers “get it” upon the first viewing. I actually like the diversity. For instance, a movie like Tetsuo comes off as an absolute mess the first time through - yet becomes something entirely different if you spend the time to look at the (very clear) intent. In the end, this comes down to preferences in movie construction - this is different, I think, than saying the movie itself sucks.

Ah, but that’s where our points differ - it’s not the same as Tetsuo - A.I. didn’t look like a mess. Neither did the Matrix sequels… but they were SO much like something else, that the original message was lost, if it was ever there… I never said the narrative should be crystal clear, but it has to leave enough clues during the viewing to entice and provoke… that is where the movies I mentioned went wrong - when they’re over, you don’t really want to get into the details, unless you’re really into what they were trying to say. Basicly, you need to approach them like a complex book, constantly sifting through pages and connecting dots. While it’s perfectly ok for a book, I don’t think film as a medium allows for such an approach.

I know we’ll never agree on this, but I hope you understand my point, just like I understand yours.

I was in two different movies. I liked the first movie, and the second too, but not at the same time.

Some people didn’t like the end because the humanity is no longer on earth (or anyplace) in a relative short period of time.

At the same time, the humanity (the good feelings) survives inside the kid, in his program.

It is hard to evaluate this film, but you really think about the situations showed in the movie. Seven stars.

I personally hated A.I. It had so much promise in the beginning, and by the time Jude Law came in and the visual got flashier and prettier I was really expecting great things. Almost immediately afterwards it became cloyingly sentimental and boring. I absolutely hated the ‘Pinocchio’ theme. And I hated the stereotypical benign, technologically advanced aliens who came along and fixed everything for our hero, if you can even call him that. Inconsistent, self indulgent, over long, boring, and with little that was original to say. I’d give it five out of ten, with one of those points being purely because I am unable to resist Jude Law.

I just love the visuals in this movie plus the ending is a strong one.

Time Travel , UFO Technology, Philadelphia Experiment , Antigravitation Theory , Warp Drive , Wormhole, Teleportation, Time Machine, Zaman Makinesi
Zaman yolculuğu ile ilgilenen ve philadelphia deneyi/UFO teknolojisi konularında döküman sahibi araştırmacı arkadaşlarla görüşmek istiyorum.Ve Zaman yolculuğu konusuna ilgi duyanlarla ileriye dönük olarak ”Zaman Yolculuğunu Araştırma ve Uygulama Merkezi” kurmayı düşünüyorum ilgilenen araştırmacılarla görüşelim. E-mail: cetinbal@hotmail.com Tel:0258 212 9816 ÇETİN BAL/DENİZLİ

BEN ZAMANDA YOLCULUK KONUSUYLA İLGİLİ ARAŞTIRMALAR YÜRÜTÜYORUM. ZAMAN YOLCULUĞUNUN DENENEBİLİRLİĞİ VE YAPILABİLİRLİĞİ DÜŞÜNCESİ İÇERİSİNDE OLAN ARAŞTIRMACI ARKADAŞLARLA TANIŞMAK VE GÖRÜŞMEK İSTİYORUM. AŞAĞIDA VERDİĞİM E-MAIL ‘DEN, EV ADRESİMDEN VE ICQ NUMARAMDAN(130446921) BANA ULAŞABİLİRSİNİZ.

Ev Adresim :

İnançbey cad. Vali Konağı karşısı
Manolya Sit. C Blok K : 6/11 Denizli / Turkey
Tel: 0 (258) 212 98 16 Cep Tel: 0536 6063183

Skype Contacts: User name: cetinbalx

E-mail : cetinbal@hotmail.com

Lea, Jon Lake, The Macro Society, Rana, A.D. 2150, M.S.2150

Macro Philosophy

http://www.zamandayolculuk.com/cetinbal/makrofelsefex.htm

I think this movie is brilliant, but it’s not for everyone. I like the idea of using science fiction to create a modern fairy tale, in the Brothers Grimm Sense- it’s NOT happy (true fairy tales never were). And it brings alot of the larger themes of robots to the table- robot racism, robot love- the whole anthropomorphizing issue; are we recreating ourselves or replacing ourselves?

“SuperToys last all summer long” is a rather flawed story… I love Brian Aldiss, but it’s not his best. But this IS science fiction cinema at it’s best.. dark, bleak, and pointing a hot poker at unpleasant aspects of the human condition.

I’m shocked there is discussion about this movie at all.

I was horrified from beginning to end (okay… I admit I liked the first small portion)… and kept wondering what Kubrick had in mind before Spielberg did his usual stuff to this. Admittedly that is the wrong perspective to come into this from… or is it?

This movie was a mess imo and any merits the indulgent visuals had seem lost to me in a totally confused cinematic indentity.. which is perhaps why this discussion is so lengthy.

I hated this film. Actually hatred is too kind a word.

One last bit of terror on my part… Jude Law (whom I normally adore) portrays some totally Spielbergian idea of a male prostitute and it is so laughable to me. He probably acted exactly as Steven told him to… so maybe it wasn’t Jude’s fault. But just as the Jamie Lee Curtis “seduction” scene in True Lies totally shows us the real face of James Cameron’s pedestrian idea of human sexuality… this male prostitute shows us an truly bizarre side of Steven. A man I might add… who has a rather strong fixation on young boys… er… young boy characters, that is.

And that Jaws movie… that couldn’t be Freudian for a… naaaaah.

Hi neuroticadivine, AI is definitely one of those movies that some absolute abhor and others totally love. In discussing this online over the years, I’ve found there’s very little middle ground. I happen to love Gigilo Joe.

Sometimes I think it was a cumulative effect as I watched… my disgust grew exponentially as I watched! By the time I got to Jude Law…!!

But truly… cyberpunk has the word “punk” in it… I can’t ever really see Spielberg as being “punk” in any way, or portraying it with any attitude like punk.

When I’m fair… I acknowledge that I really wanted another Kubrick sci-fi vision. I was also harboring some disquiet with regard to the film’s release timeline… why this came out after Kubrick’s death? Perhaps it is just logistical… but something tells me Kubrick’s soul is not present here.

Kubrick knew he couldn’t make this film, and gave it to Spielberg because he knew his approach would work better, given the material. It wasn’t like Spielberg was handed a shooting script and tore it to bits and re-did it… he shot the script Kubrick gave him.

Neuroticadivine, regardless whether you hate this or not, you do have to admit that the street scenes and forest scenes are pretty cyberpunk looking in visuals though, right?

I’d have to watch it again to respond SFAM… and I’m afraid I’d have trouble seeing it a second time!!

randomrob…

I’ve read and followed the Kubrick/Spielberg story pretty closely… although given Kubrick’s penchant for privacy there isn’t too much out there. I also work int he film industry and I know that so much stuff goes down behind the scenes that we never see or know about. Kubrick certainly invited Spielberg over to discuss it and pitched it as something Kubrick would have produced and Spielberg would have directed… but one can’t help wonder if Kubrick had really been involved to a greater degree before his death… wouldn’t his contribution have been felt more? It’s hard to imagine that perfectionist not being closely involved even with Spielberg directing.

All I’m saying is… is it possible Steven Spielberg didn’t make it while Kubrick was alive because he couldn’t imagine working with Stanley on a film given the way most people saw Stanley… as a pain in the ass?

Either way… there is so much content in the film and the portrayal of it, even if Spielberg followed Kubrick’s sketches to a tee, it’d be very easy to be an entirely different film than Stanley hoped for.

i think this site is realy good 4 me .because im doing media studies wich is analysing films adverts etc. at the moment im ding stuff about sci-fi and a.i is 1 of them and this is a great help 4 me

The ending is sentimental on the surface, but underneath it’s something else. The advanced mechas are in total control of the whole situation. It’s all just an illusion, and David is falling for it. Could love just be an illusion? Our search for god and the meaning life of could all just be an illusion?

Here is an amazing interpretation.
http://www.spielbergfilms.com/showthread.php?t=3128

I appreciated this move. I liked and disliked aspects. The ending I found was hard to choke down, but I haven’t approached it from a metaphorical standpoint, maybe I will if I watch it again.

Those were aliens at the end? I thought they were supposed to be advanced robots.

AI is underrated because it comes very close to our lonelyness and unfulfilled dreams … It deeply shows our hankering for beeing loved and hang on to our beloveds. Sentiments are so strongly developed that some people escape their feelings and that movie, because for them it is so hard to stand. Spielberg is a hurtingly deep psychologist and a great artist capable of showing our inner world of emotions and dreams …

Spielberg is as deep as a puddle of water. Whatever good is in the film is from Kubrick. Everything bad is the result of Spielberg. And yes, the film’s ending is the best thing about it; brutal stuff. Too bad Kubrick didnt live and film it as planned.

You people are all f***k up that movie was the best you all think you can make a better movie.Every single blog or review by ordinary
people who think they know how a movie should be I say fuck you.

I’m sorry I only read 2 comment before I wrote that,
Yes kubrick is the one who had the idea,I love this film I think the collaboration between spielberg and stanlely was pretty cool,also the music really hooked it.