Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(X-Entertainment)   AI review   ( divider line
    More: PSA  
•       •       •

1976 clicks; posted to Main » on 07 Jul 2001 at 4:03 AM (16 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»

48 Comments     (+0 »)
2001-07-07 04:23:58 AM  
what the fawk was that? now, i'm the last person who would pull the "this doesn't belong on x-e" bullshit, but really.
2001-07-07 04:28:05 AM  
Yea, it's weird to see such a review on X-E, but I completely agree with him. The film was incredible. There's just so much to like about it, for exactly the reasons he stated. It's a good look at what we consider "life". And it has a good underlining history, in the sense that it'll take the destruction of land and life before we finnaly get off our asses and do something about it. There's even still fundie's in it, you know they'll never go away.
2001-07-07 04:41:37 AM  
oh, i don't disagree with the review.

teddy rocked. lucas should be forced to watch ai for about two weeks non-stop. "see, george. that's how you do an cgi character. leave them wanting more."

and gigolo joe kicked ass, too.

did anyone notice any other celebrity voices besides chris rock and robin williams?
2001-07-07 05:09:00 AM  
I thought AI was lame myself. What was with that stupid running man scene with those stupid "wolf bikes"? I felt like I could see the demarcation between the parts done by Spielburg and those left by Kubrick. There were some good parts to the movie, but they just did not come together to form a single good story.
2001-07-07 05:17:41 AM  
i agree about the wolves, rebbic. i think it was supposed to be something from pinnochio. it did seem like three different movies. and my friend and i spent the whole movie going "that part is spielberg," "that part is kubric."

regardless, it's a hell of a lot better than most of the crap that comes out of hollywood.
2001-07-07 07:08:05 AM  
hahahahaha.. woah! lotsa spoilers....i shouldn't have read that review.. anyway. X-E farking rocks.. they can put whatever they want on the site dammnit!
2001-07-07 07:44:41 AM  
I was disappointed with that fact that the movie had nothing to do with steak sauce.
2001-07-07 08:12:45 AM  
I make it a point to avoid movies that are "poinient" "Touching" or "heart-wrenching" If I want to see a good flick that questions the deffintion of life while still having some awsome special effects I'll pop in "Ghost in the Shell" If I want depressing and emotional I'll look in a mirror. I hate paying $8 to cry. And I know if I saw this movie I would cry.
2001-07-07 09:39:18 AM  
I haven't seen the movie, so can't really comment yet...I must admit I was instantly put off by the tagline on the trailer:
His love is real...
But he is not.

Bleccchhhhh! Pass the bucket...
2001-07-07 09:42:13 AM  
Well, of course it's a great movie! Anything starring that cute loveable kid, Osment, is a must see in my book... He's the next Tom Hanks, I tell ya'!
2001-07-07 11:03:28 AM  
Why does everyone think Kubrick is a genius? The whole thing is a steaming turd (except for Teddy -- he should have a movie just to himself). Totally crap effects, lame supporting acting, B movie set-pieces and trying to use the kid to cover for a non-story. DO NOT WASTE YOUR MONEY!
2001-07-07 11:14:24 AM  
Meryl Streep did the voice of the Blue Fairy
2001-07-07 11:16:35 AM  
I don't mind the movie but that "adult midget" of a kid pisses me off. Spielberg: stupid little kid Kubrick: great farking movie. Bad combo.
2001-07-07 12:17:56 PM  
First of all Sparkzilla, Kubrick was a genius, AI doesnt demonstrate that genius at all, because it was a Senor Speilbergo flick, not a Kubrick flick.

Here's some problems I had with AI, some are petty. Some are spoilers.

1. The frigging robot can go underwater for long periods of time, but It can't swallow spinach? WTF kinda design is that?

2. The "wolf bikes" oh lets put neon on something, that makes it look futuristic.
3. The convient plot device of David getting the in police helicopter that can not only fly ANYWHERE, it can also go underwater if need be. Geez they just leave those sitting around now?

4. Robin Williams, I just don't like him.

5. The ending. All of it. Everything that happens after the 'part underwater' (I don't want to spoil it too much). Terrible, TERRIBLE. The movie started off strong but the ending was just such a piece of crap cop out, pull on as many heartstrings as you can thing. Half the audience was laughing when I saw it. Damn british robot aliens.

Of course, the movie had some good points, most of which have already been discussed. It started off strong, Gigolo Joe was great, Teddy was great. Kubrick's name on the credits at the begining made me happy, even if he got one half of a producer credit, its still nice to see.

That's about all I have to say. It tried to be something great, but the ending just didn't fit into the rest of the movie.

Here's a review I agree with

2001-07-07 12:18:43 PM  
Crap didn't work, fear my leet HTML skills...
2001-07-07 12:18:48 PM  
Spacegoat: I was disappointed with that fact that the movie had nothing to do with steak sauce.

Funniest thing I've read today! :)

Sparkzilla: Articles: none posted.

Yup, fits in with my theory.

Fire away, folks. But you know I'm right. ;)
2001-07-07 01:29:30 PM  
for what it's worth, many folks blame the ending for being too Spielbergish, but it's apparently the same ending that Kubrick was going to use, I suppose Spielberg was damned if he used it, and damned if he didn't
2001-07-07 01:48:10 PM  
Kubrick also had his pondering with Star Wars and if 'silly stories can make good movies.' The thing at the end probably would've work much different with kubrick at the helm though.
2001-07-07 01:49:16 PM  
Are you farking kidding me?! That article should be marked "satire." I could not believe it, and to put right up in the headline that it's "too intelligent" for audiences.

This movie literally offended me, it was so bad. Take everything I hated about Saving Private Ryan and multiply that by ten. A.I. has to be the most self-indulgent melodramatic piece of shiat I've ever seen. I can see Spielburg sitting up late, writing (because he toiled like a mad genius on this film), when he gets a burst of inspiration, eyes open wide, jaw drops into a smile, as he turns to the keyboard, saying outloud, "Two thousand years later...It's perfect!"
2001-07-07 02:39:34 PM  
i saw the movie, i liked it!! but i went with these two guys, these two dumbasses really...they didnt get it of course. they kept on complaining about how comfusing it was and blah blah blah...they just didnt get it at all. they kept on saying "oh, i was about to fall sleep! i proly DID!" when really they were about to fall asleep becuase they were too stupid to understandit all..hahaha, but i love em, ah well. i will say tho that the end was kinda weird, with the aliens and everything...but still good.
2001-07-07 02:51:16 PM  
I have to agree about that "Two thousand years later..." part. It seemed like WHOEVER wrote those narrator parts was TRYING to make the movie bad. "And so little David sat in ocean in front of the fairy day after day..." Give me a break.

Probably the reason Kubrick worked at this for so long and eventually passed it to someone else before he died was that he just could not think of a way to make this into a piece of work he would want to put his name on; and so after putting out one turd of a movie (Eyes wide) he passed it on to someone who was good, but was willing to make strings of crappy films.
2001-07-07 03:03:10 PM  
This movie wasn't that good, and I hate people who call 2001 a masterpiece.
I've never once been able to stay awake through that entire movie.
2001-07-07 03:12:26 PM  
I agree with what most of you are saying about the ending; the movie could have done without it. If they had left him in the helicopter under the sea I would have been happy. As it was, they strung it out so much I felt like repeatedly banging my head on the seat in front of me. It was just way too long.

As for the rest, you have to realize that this is not so much a sci-fi movie as a fairy tale trying to look like a sci-fi movie. It's not supposed to be extremely realistic, it's supposed to tell a story, one about someone who goes on a journey and finds peace at the end. I think it's a good story.

By the way, I also could have done without the Robin Williams cameo. Ugh.
2001-07-07 03:31:56 PM  
well, now that we've given away that part, i was kind of confused that nobody went looking for him or his underwater helicopter. i mean, the cops found the one guy easily enough, but they were like "hey, wait. our chopper thingy." "aw, screw it."

another thing i just thought about, the real son was in cryogenic suspension or some crap for, like, five years, right? then he gets better and all his friends are still the same age? were they all in cryogenic suspension, too? and who throws a pool party for their kid's birthday when their kid can't swim?
2001-07-07 03:33:01 PM  
good opinions all...I supposed it says something about the film that it generates opinions extreme enough to warrant 43 comments so quickly...a review most any other new film wuold have barely got an "eh" has a reply
2001-07-07 03:33:26 PM  
? steak sauce ? farkin robots ? i thought it was gonna be about Allen Iverson ... glad i didn't waste $8.00.....?kubrick not a genius.shyay? go watch Eyes wide shut on 40 inch screen with dolby surround after smokin' a fatty .....
2001-07-07 03:38:11 PM  
I liked the movie, but to each his own. If you liked it, good, but that doesn't make you smart or deep. If you don't like it, good, but that doesn't make you stupid or shallow.


I thought in the end, those were robots, not aliens. Like the humans died, but robots survived and kept building better and better robots for 2000 years. That's why they wanted to see what it was like to live and what the meaning of life was for humans. They're not alive and they wanted to be, just like David. Maybe I'm wrong.

I thought the narrator sounded hokey and weird because that's the way it sounds in fairy tales. Because this movie was just a more advanced Pinocchio. It gave the movie a fairy tale feeling. Again, maybe I'm wrong.
2001-07-07 03:48:50 PM  
i agree about the robots. i don't like it when a narrator busts in when the movie is almost over. they should have had him say a couple of lines in the beginning or something.
2001-07-07 05:16:03 PM  
i've got a theory about sparkzilla too. i think maybe he isn't a fat canadian loser with no life, so therefore instead of spending all of his time submitting articles about ice cubes hanging around people's necks and saying "it makes em look like a borg!", he is out getting laid or something. come on, flame me all you want, you know i'm right.
2001-07-07 06:06:05 PM  
I was absolutely loving the movie, the issues of love and artificiality, I even ignored a few of the "too cute for their own good touches". When the kid jumps off of the building, I just begged for it to end there. It was just the right note, but I already knew because everyone had told me the ending was horrible. I started to twitch as Speilberg brought in the fukcing aliens, and when Teddy pulls out the lock of hair, I went ballistic. I want Steven Spielberg's head on a stick. Does anyone know if one of Kubrick's scripts for the movie are available anywhere?
2001-07-07 06:55:48 PM  
"Why does everyone think Kubrick is a genius?"

Because he is/was a genius.
2001-07-07 07:48:53 PM  
It's hard to be objective about a movie that has such an amazing backstory to it; being Spielberg's and Kubrick's collaboration. Trying to be objective about the movie, I would say it was a wonderful film that could have been better if it was less narrative. The script was very, very good, and the characters...well, I actually cared about them, which is more than I can say for any other recent flick I've seen.
The narrative device was a cheap shot. It reminded me of the voiceover in Blade Runner that blew the whole mystique of the film, but was later omitted fo the director's cut. Hopefully there will be a special edition that will dispense with the narraration.
The technology was top notch, and it was very obvious that this was a combination of what is Kubrick and what is Spielberg. If you reflect on certain scenes, especially a certain underwater scene in Manhattan, you can get the cold, existential Kubrick and the Spielbergian longing for warmth.
I think the collaboration was perfect. You had the cold, almost dehumanizing Kubrick and the fatherly Spielberg, who wanted so desperately to be warm.

What better venue to show that dichotomy than to have a cold machine that has been given the ability to love?

And to all who are trying so hard to bash Kubrick, I'd consider reading up on the man a bit, maybe actually watch some of his films all the way through, and USE YOUR FU*CKING BRAIN.

2001-07-07 09:25:03 PM  
Art is subjective, jackass.
2001-07-07 09:40:04 PM  
There is a differance between not liking a movie because it was too intellectual for you and not liking a movie because it pulled every single melodramatic trick in the book to con you into feeling something.
2001-07-07 09:41:06 PM  
07-07-01 03:03:10 PM Beppo
This movie wasn't that good, and I hate people who call 2001 a masterpiece.
I've never once been able to stay awake through that entire movie.

07-07-01 09:25:03 PM Beppo
Art is subjective, jackass.
2001-07-07 10:20:04 PM  
Overall AI was horrible. The acting was acceptable, the special effects and sets were (for the most part) also at least adequate. Unfortunately, the story was so weak and technically flawed that the entire experience became a tedious descent into clashing directorial styles and ill-advised plot devices.

Some of the obvious technical problems with this movie:
1) If this mecha is supposed to be a replacement child, shouldn't it GROW UP?! I mean, who wants a perpetual 8 year old? (After consulting with several parents, the answer is "No one!")

2) It breaks if something gets in its mouth? I mean, that is just idiotic. OF COURSE something will eventually get in its mouth, it's inevitable. They've been making these things long enough to realize that.

3) Teddy the super-Ruxpin-toy is five times smarter than any of the AI mechas. Of the mechas experiencing the "moon" for the first time, only Teddy is smart enough to decide running is the correct response. He is also in general just much more on top of things.

There were many more (apparently keys are a thing of the past, but you'd think jet dealys would at least have the club) but around the moon part i just gave up and decided not to think about that sort of thing any more, and then maybe i'd enjoy the movie. Didn't work.

The main problem is that AI fails to make us care about the characters. I have heard people talk about this movie as a wrenching emotional tale, these people are wrong (no, really they are). None of the characters are developed in any meaningful way. The exposition of Gigolo Joe is a good example: we see him for the first time, and then 90 seconds later his life is on a completely new path that will now lead him to his "chance" rendezvous with our prosthetic protagonist. The whole thing reeks of means to an end, you can see the wheels turning in the writers head "we need him to be in the forest, so why would a gigolo mecha be in the forest . . . "
More to the emotional heart of the matter, why should i care about a mecha? I realize this is part of the fundamental question of the movie, the mecha can "love" the person, but can the person love the mecha, and in keeping with the parents in the movie, the answer is no. Once it has been established that we don't love the mecha, then why are we supposed to care about this movie? The only AI being in this movie i found the slightest bit worth caring about was Teddy, and of course he gets the totally screwed at the end.

I have also heard some people praising the cinematography in this movie. I fail to understand why. Apparently if you shoot a lot of reflections and through random opaque slates you are a cinematic genius. And i suppose that's true, after all, it worked so well in the opening credit sequence of Basic Instinct. It could be argued that these virtual images, skewed and unnatural, are a metaphor for the love (and very existence) of the AI child, but this is trite and heavy-handed, and in no way redeems them in my eyes.

Speilberg is no Kubrick. And indeed, Kubrick was no Speilberg. Their styles do not mesh. Kubrick had a gift for understatement, saying nothing but meaning alot. Or indeed, saying many many things that are of no real consequence in and of themselves, but subtly conveying an entirely unrelated yet meaningful idea. This movie has none of that, the ackward silences are just that, and the dialog is dull and lifeless. I saw this movie only a few days ago, yet i cannot remember a single line of it verbatim (a rarity for me i assure you).

To make this incredibly long rant short, this movie is extraordinarily uninspired. Nothing stands out, nothing is memorable. There are no new ideas here, no revolutionary insights or questions. I defy anyone to find an idea from AI about life (artificial or otherwise) not raised by either Blade Runner, Star Trek the next generation, the Terminator movies or the Short Circuit movies (yes, you heard me, the Short Circuit movies). With all this in mind, hope you enjoyed the show! =)
2001-07-07 10:22:48 PM  
Let's get something straight: Boring and slow does not equal "art", it equals "boring and slow".


I usually have my editor post for me (while I am out getting laid). We post everything from Japan Today
2001-07-07 11:04:23 PM  
Things I liked about this movie:

1. That Nascarish scene where all of the rednecks collect to break robots in creative ways. That was inspired.

2. The sick irony. The kid looking for the Blue Fairy to turn him into a real boy, and He knows it won't happen, and you know it won't happen, but he dementedly pursues it anyway. I'm a sucker for that sort of thing. Gets me every time. I also listen to Stephin Merritt.

3. The bear. And Gigolo joe. You could make a movie with just these two characters and it'd turn out cool.

Things I didn't like:

1. The ending. I get the feeling that this was added to take the edge off of the sick irony. The movie should have ended twenty minutes sooner.

2. All the damn bible references. 2000 years, "didn't god create adam to love him?" "let he who is without sin throw the first stone" blah blah blah. It annoys the crap out of me when people pull cheap things like this to add "depth" to the movie. Totally gratuitous.

Also. I don't know who added what, but some of the things people are attributing to kubrick were probably in the short story that the movie was based on. "Supertoys Last All Summer Long." I don't remember who the author was in the credits, but that is a damn cool title. Much better than "A.I."
2001-07-07 11:25:27 PM  
nope. most everything people are complaining about was not in the short story. basically, just the teddy bear, the letters david wrote to his "mother" after the pool incident. it really put the short in short story.
2001-07-07 11:30:35 PM  
here it is. Super-Toys Last All Summer Long.
2001-07-08 03:07:50 AM  
sparkzilla: just because your attention span is too weak to follow something great doesn't mean it isn't great. it means you aren't.
2001-07-08 03:16:54 AM  
and you all complain a lot.

if you don't cling to expectations of perfection, you may find yourselves enjoying life a lot more. just a suggestion.
2001-07-08 03:47:43 AM  
don't complain about us complaining.
2001-07-08 03:52:03 AM  
Flux your basic argument there is the same as ignorance is bliss, accept what they give you and itll be more entertaining in the long run. Good movies exist. They're just not usually at the multiplex.
2001-07-08 11:05:27 AM  
The movie should have ended at the suicide jump from the building! What I don't get is that spinach screws him up, but not an 800 foot jump from a building? This movie sucked!
2001-07-08 12:12:32 PM  
fishbulb: it's a little different than ignorance is bliss. I understand that there's a difference between good and bad movies - thats why i defended kubrick. but i hear lots of people here (look up) saying that this movie was horrible. it wasn't horrible, it was flawed. i think too often if something isn't perfect, people dismiss it as garbage. thats all i'm trying to say. i doubt anyone's still reading anyway.
2001-07-08 12:43:02 PM  
Well I came back just for you Fluxypoo, but, anyways, the movie is flawed, but its flawed enough to, in my opinion, make it terrible. Of course, its all just opinions, and none of us are "right" its just what we happen to think about the movie. We just disagree, no biggie.
2001-07-08 07:07:41 PM  
I saw Battlefield Earth on HBO last night and it was a better movie than A.I.. In fact, if I had seen that when it was in theaters, I'd be making Flux's argument while all you people trash it. The key to understanding Battlefield Earth is that John Travolta is not a dumb man, he's just out of touch with reality. What most people thought was stupidity in that movie was actually really witty irony. Movies based on L. Ron Hubbard or Ayn Rand novels are almost a genre of their own--rent Search and Destroy to see another example of that.

Got to thinking about the differences between A.I. and 2001, what could have made A.I. better, etc. Could go into in chat, but I'll just restate here: Speilburg is no-talent scum. Saving Private Ryan was one of the worst films ever made, and A.I. is worse. The only reason Schindler's List didn't suck as well is that Speilburg had too much respect for the subject matter to pull his usual stunts.

Have deleted four-five paragraphs, three times. I just can't go into this, A.I. sucks that bad. Watch City of Lost Children for an example of how it could have been good.
Displayed 48 of 48 comments

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter

Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.