We have moved to new forum software and posting here is closed!

PLEASE BOOKMARK THE NEW FORUMS

Posted By: fanuilh Jul 10, 2001 - 03:47 pm

The new Steven Spielberg movie. To quote the summary: "It's the mid-21st century and man has developed a new type of computer that is aware of its own existence. This computer has been utilized to help man cope with the melting of the polar ice caps and the submerging of many of its coastal cities. This form of artificial intelligence has been used in robots, and one such android, a young boy (Haley Joel Osment) is about to take an emotional journey to find out if he can ever be anything more than a machine."

Posted By: fanuilh Jul 10, 2001 - 04:14 pm

You know the news is not good when someone asks you, "How was the movie?" And the first thing you can think of to say is, "The special effects were great."

The special effects were great, actually. In one early scene, the doctor (William Hurt) is giving a demonstration using a human-form robot. He has her open her mouth so he can push a button to begin the process of opening her face. When he puts her back together, I was watching very closely for the moment when I could see the transition between the device they used to film the scene, and the actress. I couldn't see it. It was seamless. Very impressive.

The story was originally thought up by Stanley Kubrick, who didn't live long enough to actually film it. He handed it over to Steven Spielberg, and actually Spielberg did a fine job with the imagery. Haley Joel Osment does a simply superior job; he is amazing. The story itself... well....

As has been said by other, smarter people, it's Pinocchio revisited. There are some heart-wrenching scenes, as when David's "mother" drops him off in the woods like an unwanted puppy because she can't bring herself to take him back to his creators (I won't say why, lest it be a spoiler), even though he hasn't... umm... worked out, shall we say. Seems nobody building these robots read any of Asimov's robot stories. Would have saved a lot of trouble. There is also a scene where (I don't know if it was deliberate) a sort of swipe is taken at Bill Gates. A character refers to the Damage Avoidance System built into some robots, and calls it "DAS" but he pronounces it the same as "DOS." The joke, I thought, was in the fact that nobody in the group recognized it. A sort of "Ha ha, Mr. Bill, umpty-ump years in the future and nobody remembers you!" But maybe I read into it. Anyway, I thought it was rather funny.

But I was flat-out annoyed by some other obvious attempts to tweak my emotions. I knew from the beginning of David's "journey" that this was not going to end up happily ever after. But getting there seemed interminable. Frankly, I ended up feeling sorrier for the teddy bear. He got left behind.

Ah, well. Has anybody else seen it? And had a different reaction? Am I getting cynical in my old age? Or, Lord help me, maybe menopause is kicking in.... (aaauuuggghhhh!!!!!)

Posted By: Aslan Jul 15, 2001 - 06:36 am

NOTE: DO NOT READ THIS IF YOU HAVE NOT SEEN THE MOVIE! THE END WILL BE GIVEN AWAY (sort of)!!!

I liked AI a lot, for a lot of different reasons. First off, I have to agree with you that Asimov should be THE reference for anything robots. However, I think that Asimov would have liked this movie simply because it explored human/robot relationships and the difficulties thereof. Remember, "Millenium Man" was based off an Asimov short, and that was ... nevermind, this is a family website.

What impressed me about A.I.:

Directing: Spielberg surprised me by mixing his own style with Kubrick's. True, it probably wasn't as gritty as it would have been under Kubrick, and there wouldn't have been cameo voices of Robin Williams and Chris Rock. But it was far grittier than any fiction piece Spielberg has done. I liked that he bent his own boundaries.

It was a slow start, exploring human/robot relationships (note: I would LOVE to see a robot movie that incorporates Asimov's three Robot Commandments). This probably bored a lot of people crazy, but I think it was necessary to explain the motivations of characters.. something that's commonly left on the cutting room floor.

After such a sci-fi start, it became fairy tale. Not just Pinocchio. It had its own beautiful, yet tragic identity. Waiting thousands of years praying to the blue fairy was so tragic it was almost comical. I loved that.

I like that a lot of things were left open-ended. Our imaginations were necessary to fill in certain holes. For example, did David die at the end? Or did he wake up more aware, since his obsession had been fulfilled? Also, were the creatures that found him aliens? Ultra-advanced robots? The dialogue seemed to point both ways. Which is one reason why I'd like to see the movie again.

And that's one of the best signs of a great movie. I came out of the theater, thinking, "I need to see that again." It's a thinker movie, and I didn't use up all my thoughts the first time.

There were problems with the movie (the cameos bugged me, and though Joe was fun, either the acting or the directing weren't consistent), but it took chances. And without taking chances, we'll just end up rehashing the same old movies again and again.

One reviewer put it well, "You'll love it or hate it." I can see that.

My four cents.
~Aslan

Posted By: Lady of the Lake Jun 19, 2002 - 08:09 am

Do not read if you have not seen the film:

I thought it was brilliant - but also really horrible. It kept me up all night and I couldn't help thinking about it for days. I think the worst bit for me was that the boy just couldn't die. Even when he jumped into the water near the end he just kind of floated downwards. I really wanted it to end with him dying, as it was the only way it could have ended happily, but instead it did a "and 3000 years later, David was still there". eternity is a really disturbing thought.

Posted By: jubal Aug 28, 2002 - 11:53 pm

I think A.I. was one of the best SF movies I have seen in a long long time. The cinematography was excellent, emotive within itself. Reminesent of "something wicked this way comes". The acting was very good. The storyline although somewhat strained in originallity was enchanting (not necessarily a postive word). The special effects were excellent. Especially the future robots, they were downright dali-esque. I could even argue the point of the ending not being less than a happy one.

Posted By: Bmat Aug 29, 2002 - 04:16 am

Would you please tell more about what you mean by your last sentence?

Posted By: jubal Aug 29, 2002 - 10:43 am

The kid got what he wanted, love from his mother. If even for a short time he got it. There is something to be said for quality versus quantity. Even a brief moment in time last forever in your memory and who knows what that may mean for an A.I. He may be able to relive that day at will for ever.

Posted By: fanuilh Aug 31, 2002 - 07:11 am

Except she wasn't his mother. She was a clone, wasn't she? His "mother" was long dead. He never got what he longed for. And the teddy bear still got abandoned.

And he couldn't "relive" that moment, anyway, whether it was real or not. He died at the end of the movie.

Posted By: jubal Mar 05, 2003 - 09:49 pm

I recently saw the movie again. The clone mother had the same genetic memory of the original mother. The teddy bear produced the hair to make the clone and was never abandoned. The mother died again, but the movie never stated that the boy did.

Posted By: Tech May 29, 2003 - 04:57 pm

I think you were to assume David died. Or his time ended, however you would like to put it.

Overall, I liked this movie. I think Halle Joel Osmet was quite good. It was a great way to put love and sci-fi together. Sometimes, that is not pulled off very well.

The special effects were indeed wonderful. It wasn't so much action or anything that impressed me, just the realism of the whole movie.