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.

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.

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.

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)

 |  IP: Logged

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.

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

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.)

"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/

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.

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

 |  IP: Logged