artificiality

The few minutes it will take you to read "Super-Toys Last All Summer Long" will be much better spent than the two and a half hours you'll have to spend watching A.I..

I really like Spielberg, even if he tends to be a little schmaltzy. He tells amazing cinematic stories with an emotional core. And Schindler's List and the Shoah Project are very close to my heart.

But this time he's just missed. The movie is full of holes, abrupt changes, and has possibly the worst ending I've ever seen. The bottom line is, if anyone else had been in the director's chair, this movie never would have been made.

Spend five minutes reading the story and then go have a walk in the park. Trust me, it'll be time better spent.

{ 12:56am }

» AI isn't out here in Ireland yet, but I have seen the trailer and it looks...well...lame.
It didn't interest me at all and I doubt I'll bother going to see it. Watching the advantures of Data the android attempting to become more human in Star Trek was quite enough.

Spielberg made mistakes before, with 1941, if I recall...

I guess he's entitled to make the odd cinimatic mistake though....I certainly would have a much softer spot for him as a director than I would for other directors...the first movie I ever saw was one of his, the wonderful E.T..

I have to say that were it not for Spielberg, to a certain extent, I'd probably not be who I am.

I've been creeped out by Jaws, I've been amazed by Jurassic Park, I've been utterly horrified by what I saw in Schindlers List (I saw it when it was released and despite trying, I haven't been able to look at it since, it disturbed me so much), and I've been moved by Saving Private Ryan - I even got on the set for the Normandy invasion scene in "...Ryan".

– Tom Cosgrave  { 7.4.01 @ 7:11am }

» yea.... Couldn't really see where he was going. It was enjoyable to watch...but in the end... somehow, just left me feeling empty.

– Kevin-John  { 7.4.01 @ 8:46am }

» I spent so much time in awe of the fact that Spielberg actually tried something new visually (lighting, color, texture are all so different than anything he's ever done) that I didn't really absorb the storyline until days later. I originally lauded it as his "art" film, but unfortunately it's missing one key element of any great art film: substance.

Bummer.

– michaelbrown  { 7.4.01 @ 3:16pm }

» I liked it very much, except for the "...and then the aliens show up" part. Had it ended right before then, it would have been excellent. Subtly creepy and atmospheric. I understand that the ending was at Kubrik's original suggestion. I am inclined to think he was just pulling Spielberg's leg: "...and then the aliens show up!" Wink, wink, nudge, nudge.

– d.  { 7.4.01 @ 3:24pm }

» they're not aliens, but everyone assumes they are. the ending was awful either way.

– rebekah jude  { 7.4.01 @ 7:39pm }

» Agreed, agreed, agreed...although, if you've been playing the game there's actually (we *speculate*) some backstory there that fills in that godawful ending.

One thing to note is that the aliens *aren't* aliens. They're extremely advanced AI's -- note all the circutry, also note that they say to David (when they first meet him) "you hold memories of living people." Not just people -- living people. It also gives a plausible reason for them to want to help David -- they're not just taking care of a relic, they're taking care of one of their own.

I've no idea why Spielberg didn't emphasize this more -- or why he made them look like aliens when they could have looked like *anything.*

– roe  { 7.4.01 @ 8:02pm }

» Man, I thought the movie SUCKED big time. It had like 5 different storylines going that really had nothing to do with eachother. Plus, the character's weren't really developed well. The husband wanted the boy so badly and talked his wife into having him, but then he disappeared out of the story. What happened to him? And what was the point of Joe? How come that guy wanted to frame him for the murder of that woman?

So confusing, so many loose ends, such a huge dissappointment.

– Jenn  { 7.4.01 @ 9:05pm }

» I will never be able to get the "imprinting" scene out of my head--anyone who has ever cradled their own child that way might understand the chills I felt when plastic robot boy suddenly turns into plushy adoring child ... that it was just that simple. I guess that's also when I really felt Kubrick in the room. Completely overwhelmed me.

So I spent the rest of the film (indeed, the past several days) contemplating the nature of the parent-child bond. Later in the movie, Joe (the holy ghost among the trinity of David's fathers--and the only consistently interesting character) tells David "(your mother) doesn't love you, she loves what you do for her." And even though zombie-mommy says she loves David at the end, I don't think it's truly possible to love someone without real, honest to god flaws. My kid is a perpetual noisemaker. He uses his dinner fork for ANYTHING BUT eating dinner. He shrieks and his room is a sty. But I love him.

This movie, of course, had some real, honest to god flaws, but I rarely get to the movies, so it didn't matter much to me. Jude Law was a hoot (Jenn, he was framed so the murderer wouldn't go to jail for killing his own wife). I guess I don't go to h'wood blockbusters expecting to be satisfied anymore, so this was no big deal ...

– ari  { 7.4.01 @ 11:11pm }