I gotzta know......

Am I the only one who really thinks that A.I. is underrated?

I really enjoy this film....the soundtrack is very cool as well.

I've only seen it once but I thought it was a decent movie...but then again, I enjoyed Waterworld and The Postman!

Hiya Barney Miller! :p

I like the Postman more than Waterworld.....it was a bit to road warrior on water for me....good humor parts though!

Excuse me!!!!

Barney Miller?????

That's Andy Griffith, thank you!!!!! :lol:

Sorry!
http://static.flickr.com/75/228168375_d6124ad953_m.jpg

im sorry but i thought a.i. sucked. it was overwrought, overblown, and terribly boring. it was as subtle as a sledgehammer. sometimes emotional manipulation works even when you are aware of it, and at other times it doesent. for me, a.i. fell into the latter column.

I tried watching it on TV. Didn't succeed.

Am I the only one who really thinks that A.I. is underrated?

No, you're not. There was a thread here a while back on A.I., and I won't bore you with my full review, but I think while being a very flawed movie it is also very very good - had me crying like a baby at the end.

How does a movie master of one kind honor the vision of a movie master of another kind? Best as he could manage, I consider it Spielberg's love letter to Kubrick. Right or wrong, Spielberg is really the only director alive today who could get it done.

John O.

AI is above average. Kubrick would have been a better director. $peilberg messed it up because he's NOT Kubrick. Parts of the movie were over-long, and after we 'got it' it was time to move on. Why the future had humanoid androids instead of specialty droids I'll never know. Putting the Global Warming twist seemed to ruin many parts.

I was pretty non-plussed by the movie. Had a hard time making it through it once and wouldn't be inclined to watch it again. Kubrick was a genius but he definitely declined as he got older. Not so sure it would have been "better" in his hands late in his career.

I have mixed feelings about A.I.

The film is brimming with breathtaking images and thought-provoking ideas, but somehow the story never quite gels dramatically. It's frustrating, because clearly a great deal of thought was given to making it a serious and entertaining science-fiction film.

A big part of the problem is David, or more specifically his dramatic through-line. Haley Joel Osmond is a swell actor, but his character's hopeless quest to find the Blue Fairy and become a real boy is simply not very compelling. It's hard to root for a character when you know he has no hope of realizing his goal (which is one of the reasons insane characters seldom make good protagonists).

AI is above average. Kubrick would have been a better director. $peilberg messed it up because he's NOT Kubrick. Parts of the movie were over-long, and after we 'got it' it was time to move on. Why the future had humanoid androids instead of specialty droids I'll never know. Putting the Global Warming twist seemed to ruin many parts.

I don't hate the movie, I just don't think that it is anything special. I feel about it, the same way that I do about "The Abyss", nice to watch once, but nothing I feel any need to ever see again.

From what I have read S.S. used, and followed Kubrick's script and storyboards because he wanted to make the movie the way Kubrick wanted. Don't know it it is true, or not, but it is interesting, if true. But, as it is over-long, boring, pretentious and over-blown it sure qualifies as a Kubrick movie.

I like Kubrick movies, it is that I just think that most of his movies are over-long, boring, pretentious, and over-blown. Twisted, I know. :)

David.

I really enjoy this film....the soundtrack is very cool as well.

I too enjoy the film for what it is.

The soundtrack really is nice, and I have it on DVDAudio in 5.1 surround. That makes it even better.

There were parts of the movie that I really liked and parts that seemed to go on far too long. I thought Spielberg did a very good job of 'channeling" Kubrick, because a lot of A.I. looked more like a Kubrick movie than a Spielberg one. That being said, Spielberg does tend to tug (yank, pull, wrench) at the heartstrings, especially when there are kids involved - Kubrick wouldn't have lingered on that nearly so much. I thought the movie was going to end several times before it actually did - and I hate to say it, but I was ready for it to end at those points. Haley Joel Osment did a great job, and I haven't been able to look at Jude Law ever since without thinking of him as being a robot.

I like Kubrick movies, it is that I just think that most of his movies are over-long, boring, pretentious, and over-blown.

Yeah, and Mozart used too many notes. ;)

Originally Posted by Krel
I like Kubrick movies, it is that I just think that most of his movies are over-long, boring, pretentious, and over-blown.



Define "pretentious".

I think that Kubricks version would have been more powerful emotionally. I could see where he might have sterilized a lot of the parts up until the "end", where the boy was finally accepted by his mother. Talk about waterworks, the world would have flooded again. No one would see it coming. That's my take on it anyway. Spielberg? The heartstring plucking could be observed approaching from space.

I think it's worth pointing out that Kubrick practically begged Spielberg to direct A.I. because he felt the story needed a "Spielbergian" touch (who better to supply this than Spielberg himself). Spielberg declined, urging Kubrick to make the film himself. It was only following Kubrick's death that Spielberg decided to take a crack at getting his late friend's vision up on the screen.

Spielberg takes a lot of lumps for being (overly) sentimental, but I suspect A.I. is much closer to Kubrick's vision than a lot of critics are willing to admit.

Vision and execution are 2 different things.

Spielberg takes a lot of lumps for being (overly) sentimental, but I suspect A.I. is much closer to Kubrick's vision than a lot of critics are willing to admit.

Critics like F91, for example. :devil:

John O.

Am I the only one who was thinking of Astro Boy for much of this film? Mainly during the robot circus scnes, I guess...

Yeah, and Mozart used too many notes. ;)

There are exactly as many notes as....!

JOHN!!!! I thought we were friends!!? ;) I just felt like, during the movie, I was watching Spielberg trying to imitate Kubrick. I loved Jaws and Jurrasic Park, but ET and the like seemed predictable. I liked AI plenty, but Kubrick was an artist.

Yeah, and Mozart used too many notes. ;)So, there it is. ;)

Vision and execution are 2 different things.

Absolutely.

My point is that Kubrick loved the story, and felt the potential was there for a smart, commercial, emotionally compelling motion-picture. He also felt, rightly or wrongly, that Spielberg was ideally suited to bring the material to life.

Unfortunately, the problems with A.I. are present at the conceptual level, and no amount of carefully nuanced direction (i.e. execution) was ever going to fix them.

Agreed!

I like Kubrick movies, it is that I just think that most of his movies are over-long, boring, pretentious, and over-blown. Twisted, I know. :)


Agreed. Not on the twisted part - on the rest of it.

Agree to disagree!

There was an explanation at the beginning of the film that said
Global Warming destroyed the world.

But the mother is driving around in a nice new car through lush,
green forests.

She lives in a beautiful three-story house.

She seemed to have ample food and water.

Technology has progressed immensely, (life-like robots, etc.)


If this is the result of Global Warming, bring it on!

Good and understanable points all around.

Still I like the film for what it is.

I wonder how many folks here in general are NOT married, don't have kids and live in more polite and safer places.....see after all that I need or like mellow and moody flicks.

I look to be taken away from life in a film....I hate cheez and stupid .....but I also do not try to disect a film to expose its flaws.

After all....it is just entertainment.

t I also do not try to disect a film to expose its flaws.

Aw c'mon Troy, that's part of the fun. ;)

Seriously, I think we can acknowledge a film's flaws without taking anything away from the enjoyment we get from watching it. A.I. is a good example. Is it a great film? Probably not, but it's got a lot on its mind, and it's fun to watch (at least I think it is).

As for Stanley Kubrick and Steven Spielberg, I submit their respective cinematic legacies will stand up to anything this forum dishes out.

I liked it a lot. Recognize the flaws but still liked it. Didn't know the bit about Spielberg channeling Kubrick. I thought he was channeling Bradbury.

Agree to disagree!

I'm afraid I can't agree. :tongue:

I liked it a lot. Recognize the flaws but still liked it. Didn't know the bit about Spielberg channeling Kubrick. I thought he was channeling Bradbury.
Y'know, I knew there was something that I really liked about A.I., but I never could place my finger on it. I think you've hit the nail on the head w/the Bradbury thinking, tho! Looking back, it really does come across like some of his work. It never really gets in to trying to explain things where the technology is concerned, it pretty much just shows them as they are.

I'm still trying to figger out how eating spinach gives a robot Bell's pallsey.

Too much "iron"?

Troy, I was highly impressed with this when I saw it a few years ago and have been menaing to see it again and get a better grasp of it. But, man, it's just a hard movie for me to watch again - it's such a downer!

I'm hoping to do a 2001/A.I. double-feature night, given the similar themes of humanity's relationship to technology and evolution. Unlike the people who see too much Speilbrg, I see an awful lot o' Kubrick in there.