Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Film, TV & Theatre >

A.I.

autopsy of a rockstar

04:52 / 02.07.01

Happened to see this for free yesterday and I'm completely lost on how to feel about this movie, whether I think it's a steaming pile of crap or whether it's just nominally good or absolute genius. At times it's clunky as hell and other times its mindblowing the more you dwell on it.

B

I

G

F

A

T

S

P

O

I

L

E

R

S

I will say this though.. at first I was royally pissed that Spielberg clumsily inserted the Close Encounters extraterrestrials into an otherwise tragically beautiful sci-fi fairy tale. That is until I found out the alien creatures were in fact supermecha, highly evolved AI, which brought the whole thing full circle. Has anyone else visited the webgame after seeing this movie? I found it not only complimented it but seemed to fill in the confusing blanks the movie occasionally plopped in your lap. Poor Martin actually remorseful for screwing over his robot Abel.

What says the peanut gallery?

14:04 / 02.07.01

I saw it yesterday, decidedly not for free. Disclaimer- I'm a sentimental fool whose maternal instincts have been kicking in lately.

I really liked it. I'm not a student of Kubrick's work, so I don't really know whether putting his name on it did him justice or not. But I liked it a lot. The people around me in the theater said stuff like "I can't believe how unbelievably bad that was," and "I don't know, I was expecting something lighter." I'd like to see it again to get another take on it, but I kinda can't afford to.

14:43 / 02.07.01

does anyone mention evan chen?

autopsy of a rockstar

17:08 / 02.07.01

quote: does anyone mention evan chen?

Nope. Not even once. The game barely skirts the movie and its characters and is actually based about 40 years or so after the events in A.I., like a sequel actually. But it's a wonderfully designed tie-in, which seems to shed some light on some loose strings in the movie that left me a bit cold. If you see the movie and can't be bothered to trudge through the labyrinth that is the webgame, I'd recommend just going Here to get the more digestable run-down of the game. That and the Guide at Cloudmakers.org.

It's just a shame the mainstream audience didn't get any of that webgame information packaged within the film. It would have helped things immensely.

Much of the reason people feel the movie sucked so terribly was because it felt like half a movie, with lots of story barely nestled into and intimated before quickly pushed aside to the next character or adventure David encounters. You didn't feel for the little bastard like you should have. Osment's acting was superb but the dialogue felt stilted, nerve-wracking at times and yet beautifully solemn at the next stroke.

It has merit and I'd definitely recommend going to see it if for no other reason than the communication it'll foster among friends. It certainly got my head spinning on issues concerning a story I've been writing about a robot searching for God.

But I can't help but wonder what things would've been different had it been a solely Kubrick vision instead of a Stevely Kuberg film. Some parts of it were a perfect fit between the two directors. Other parts... I dunno. The wrong cog in the right machine.

17:48 / 02.07.01

I didn't think it was a bad movie either. Oddly enough, I think most people are confused because it is not what they were expecting, or not like any narrative they've seen before.

As a storyteller I found myself upset that the way the story was presented, and the tacked on ending bugged the crap out of me. However, not matter how much my mind analyzed the movie, I was still very touched by the whole thing.

Remember, the brain as it interprets things, cannot distinguish between real and projection (all things are projected into the brain). I was really bummed out that night after the movie thinking about the A.I. that wanted love so badly etc.

There is a great explaination about the ending by someone on Aint it cool News (or was there, I just discovered they moved the link), and it jelled the ending for me. Whatever. I look forward to seeing the movie again (on DVD) in the future.

15:43 / 03.07.01

It desperately needed a scissors.

<<<DON'T READ FURTHER IF YOU HAVEN"T SEEN THE MOVIE - MAY BE A SPOILER>>>

General:

While the visuals were fabulous, the sound was fabulous, there were some plot inventions that were completely trite (the nasty human brother for one, the constant Pinnochio references), and way too much - the whole rock concert at the Flesh Fair went on waaaaay too long. The last forty- five minutes (evolved robot sequence) was endless. The throughline split half way through into the whole Pinocchio thing. In some ways the script is still very Kubrick.

The Actors:

Haley Joel Osment had to carry the film. A 13 year old had to carry the film. He managed and turned in an excellent performance. My god, can you imagine being 13 and having all that money dependent on how well you do?

Bill Hurt's performance as the mastermind behind the Mechs was his usual annoying, patronizing, phoning-in of his performance, which added nothing.

Sam Robards character, the father, was completely mystifying - he brings home this thing to cheer up his wife and then spends his time hating it and then dissapears. It seemed something WAS cut out that may have done more to explain the behaviour of his character.

Frances O'Connor. O.k. She did convey a mother's grief - where I felt she fell short was in the separation from David - where she drops him off. I am not a big fan after seeing her hystrionics in Madam Bovary, so I am probably harder on her than I should be.

Jude Law. Gorgeous as usual. Good performance.

Teddy. Brilliant. In fact many of the small character parts - the nanny mech, etc were more interesting than some of the main characters

All in all, if they had stayed closer to the Aldiss story (and yes, I know it's only a page and a half or so suggestion of a story), it would have been better. If they hadn't tried to make it OK (welcome to Hollywood) at the end it would have been better (I would have been fine with ending it under the ocean).

All in all, ok. Wouldn't pay full price again. I think it will win awards and go down in history as a cult movie.

My 2p/c

Ronald Thomas Clontle

16:28 / 03.07.01

I was pretty happy with it, it was better than I was expecting, actually. I thought it looked amazing all the way though, by leaps and bounds the best looking film Spielberg's ever done. The only thing that I didn't care for especially was the end sequence, but honestly, it doesn't bug me that much. It's funny, that end bit is like the perfect wedding of both Spielberg and Kubrick's greatest flaws, isn't it? Which is an odd concept considering one's worst impulses are to be sappy and sentimental, and the other's is to be overly cold and cerebral.

Haley Joel Osment was really impressive to me, I thought he did a wonderful job. I've never seen anything else he's been in, so he was a revelation to me. Frances O'Connor did a good job, but personally, I felt she was maybe a bit too sexy to be playing a central mother figure...it seemed that by having the mother be this good looking young woman it was maybe working the Oedipal Complex thing a bit too strong.

I know a lot of folks who've seen it, they all loved it. The reviews have been great. I'm surprised to hear that there's a good number of people who didn't like it. It's a pretty likable film, I think.

23:16 / 07.07.01

I saw it yesterday and I had been super-excited to see how the whole posthumous Kubrick/Speilberg thing turned out. I'd been very intrigued by what a film with both of those influences on it would look like.

I enjoyed it, but I'm still not entirely sure what to make of it. I agree the tacked on ending was not only too long but too annoying. I had about three different scenes in mind that could have worked as closing shots - and no doubt would have had Kubrick directed it - but Speilberg seems to have a compulsion for the feel - good ending.

I do think this is Speilberg's best film to date. I mean think about "Raiders of the Lost Arc" and "Jurrasic Park," or even "Schindler's List" and compare them to "A.I." This certainly seems to be the most intellectual and least emotionally manipulative film he's done (not that emotions weren't manipulated, mind).

I thought the mom was way too young. I kept thinking that she could easily play like a babysitter or a college student - so what is she doing playing the mother of a child who's been cryogenically frozen for five years? The flesh fair thing went on too long as well.

Still, the movie was gorgeous, as well as thought-provoking. Interestingly enough, there was an article in the editorial section of the Chicago Tribune advising folks NOT to go see "A.I." because it "devalues human life." I thought the guy was missing the point - and I think the film is much more ambiguous than that. Still, in my book any film that makes someone mad enough to write a column is doing something right.

Haley Joel Osment is fucking amazing. I am perpetually amazed that this kid consistently outperforms most of the actors he works with. He was definitely one of the best things about this movie.

Ronald Thomas Clontle

11:29 / 08.07.01

quote:Originally posted by Cherry Bomb:
Still, the movie was gorgeous, as well as thought-provoking. Interestingly enough, there was an article in the editorial section of the Chicago Tribune advising folks NOT to go see "A.I." because it "devalues human life." I thought the guy was missing the point - and I think the film is much more ambiguous than that. Still, in my book any film that makes someone mad enough to write a column is doing something right.

Wow. I tried looking through the Tribune page for that op/ed piece, but I couldn't find it, I don't think they keep articles up online or something. I'd really like to read it if anyone can find it/link it...I'm intrigued to read something by someone who can miss a point THAT much.

14:07 / 08.07.01

I'll see if I can find it. It was in the Monday 7/2 edition of the paper. I'll give it a look-see.

14:15 / 08.07.01

I did finally find the article, but the trib has set up some new irrittating system where you have to pay to read the articles in their archives - in spite of the fact that this article was published less than a week ago!! Grr.

18:27 / 08.07.01

this is all just recycled from my site, so i apologize for that, but here are some good AI links for the backstory of its writing.
quote:
"STANLEY KUBRICK, BRIAN ALDISS AND A.I."(The Sci-Fi Movie Page), "Nothing artificial: ‘A.I.’s’ real story" (MSNBC), and the original brian aldiss story "A.I." is based on: "Super-Toys Last All Summer Long."
also, this summary of kubrick's original treatment appeared a couple months ago, and was discredited by the movie's producers, but having seen the movie, i think it could be for real. we may never know, but it's interesting to read. it reads like kubrick - a much harder-edged fairy tale.

22:38 / 09.07.01

Does anyone have a link to that game, I'd like to play it and can't find it.

The Return Of Rothkoid

22:38 / 09.07.01

quote:Originally posted by fukphace:
Does anyone have a link to that game, I'd like to play it and can't find it.
cloudmakers.org has info. It's not a "game" in the Shockwave sense; it's more a "using Google and sniffing out links between websites to piece together a story" kind of pursuit.

Jack The Bodiless

15:13 / 04.11.01

This movie is utter toss. Worst film I've seen in years. It looks beautiful, makes no sense, attempts to manipulate but utterly fails due to clueless, directionless plotting, almost entirely godawful dialogue, and no real understanding of the subject matter. And it's thick as pigshit. Intellectual my left testicle. The best thing about it is Haley Joel Osment, as usual, despite having hardly anything to work with.

Still give me the shivers how truly awful it was. Thank Christ I didn't pay to go and see it...

17:45 / 04.11.01

quote:Originally posted by @GOD:
...I am seriously looking forward to seeing Minority Report and its plot promise. The premise of Minority report, according to Corona's Coming Attractions: "In a future society crimes are detected before they are committed by use of psychics. Police are then dispatched to arrest the future criminal before they can commit the deed."

Hmmm.

[ 04-11-2001: Message edited by: Jack Fear ]

09:08 / 05.11.01

quote:Originally posted by @GOD:
A giant wawe will wash over New York in April next year, although I have my guesses as to why it will happen they remain just that: guesses, so I prefer not to tell, but the wawe has been seen by many people.

YEEEESSSS! Something verifiable and unambiguous predicted BEFORE IT HAPPENS! YEE-HAW! We'll have a little follow-up in May '02.

The Return Of Rothkoid

15:06 / 05.11.01

Waves "on topic" flag

C'mon... this ain't the Head Shop, people....

That said, I've still not managed to see the film as yet. The criticism I've heard so far from a lot of people I trust has really put me off...

[ 05-11-2001: Message edited by: Rothkoid ]

16:46 / 05.11.01

Holds hands up in a shit, whatyagonnadoaboutit gesture

Still off-topic, Im afraid:

But @God might actually be right here - maybe not the date, but there has been major scientific research suggesting this could happen. Therefore, not that much of a 'psychic' prediction.

To be fair, thogh, the BBC is a reliable news source so I doubt he'll have seen this. It 'will happen', I'd guess, because shitloads of rock falls off the Canaries.

ON TOPIC:

I don't want to watch it, for a number of reasons.

1: The hype about the hype: marketing execs going on about how they'd kill for a selling point like the 'Cloudmakers' game.

2: The whole Speilberg/Kubrick 'anointed one fills the master's shoes' crap.

3:And while I did like him, I really can't stand that little Haley Joel Osmond shit. It was all that 'where's Jamie Bell?' crap at the Oscars which turned me against him.

4: Jude Law is scum

5: I don't have a video club membership.

10:01 / 06.11.01

And Paul McCartney is dead too -

Paul id Dead

Just wanted to join in ....

The Return Of Rothkoid

10:27 / 06.11.01

And now, returning to discussion about the film...

10:33 / 06.11.01

It was ok, kinda like eating 10 cream eggs one after another.. it was like an episode of the outer limits (anyway seen the one with the android wife, kinda like that)...probably be forgotten about soon enough and then dragged up in the future so people can go on about how amazing it was..

The Return Of Rothkoid

11:04 / 06.11.01

Well - would you say it's style over substance? Some kind of "look! meeting of directors! glacial design! neato CGI!" wankfest, or is there a deeper meaning to the film? Is it important to cinema because of the marketing campaign it kicked off, or... what?

11:11 / 06.11.01

There is a message hidden away in there but its not a new one... I'd like it if people would stop using Kubricks name to try and sell it...