-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
The GREATEST Movie Debate of ALL-TIME: A.I. -- Good or Shitty?
- Thread starter Willco
- Start date
- Status
Warm Machine
Member
Flawed but good.
APerfectCircle
Member
worst movie i have ever seen (or close to), i went n saw it with school, and if i didn't need the bus trip back home i woulda walked out.
I kind of agree with Jinx....it was really good until the end which was a bit to Spielbergy for me. I enjoyed it, it was thought provoking, but I wish Kubrick had made it himself.
And by the way, just for the record, they're goddamn
for shitsake.
And by the way, just for the record, they're goddamn
robots at the end, not aliens
Warm Machine
Member
APerfectCircle said:
You've only seen 1 other movie right.
Too many ideas for one movie, I thought. Lots of scenes, sequences, and especially cameos that had nothing to do with the central plot thread, and just seemed like worldbuilding for its own sake. (And yes, the ending is an utter mistake on many levels, and I'm not just talking about the appearance of the future-bots.) I had way more fun with the Beast game than the actual movie.
Schmo Florez
Member
Jude Law was really frickin' cool in this movie. So I vote good.
Musashi Wins!
FLAWLESS VICTOLY!
Hated it the first time, liked it more later. Still think the pacing is all wrong. Not sure how I would vote. Very close to in the middle.
RobotChant
Member
That gets my vote... so failure, but with good qualities.
IAmtheFMan
Member
FoneBone said:
You nailed it. I'd vote on the good side just because of the city sequences.
Tommie Hu$tle
Member
So the Final Judgement around here is that AI was good and shitty.
I can agree with that.
I can agree with that.
DonasaurusRex
Online Ho Champ
IT was good but just went on too long it had a perfect ending and then there was more ...and more..and more. bleah otherwise a good flick.
Brilliant. It's a masterpiece.
Too many people just sit around trying to categorize the film, figuring out whether it's more Kubrick or Spielberg and at which points, and they just miss how wonderfully the whole thing gels together. It's got this whole yin/yang thing going on; the beauty is in the dichotemy of the cold and warm approaches. One isn't nearly as effective without the other. People just outright assume that the touches of Kubrick and Spielberg have to clash, and they don't. They operate simultaneously, perfectly replicating the themes of the film. It's all about hope, that one unique human trait, and how it's simultaneously humanity's saving grace and fatal flaw. Sure, you can sit there and take one point of view and say the film supports one or the other, or you can see that it's both, or perhaps neither. It's definitely transcending a simple black and white picture of what defines humanity and mortality.
The film acts as sort of a mirror. It becomes what you project onto it.
For my money, it's a masterpiece. Not perfect, but an ambitious and epic film that I hope people will come to appreciate in the future, just as many stunning films were left behind upon initial release.
Too many people just sit around trying to categorize the film, figuring out whether it's more Kubrick or Spielberg and at which points, and they just miss how wonderfully the whole thing gels together. It's got this whole yin/yang thing going on; the beauty is in the dichotemy of the cold and warm approaches. One isn't nearly as effective without the other. People just outright assume that the touches of Kubrick and Spielberg have to clash, and they don't. They operate simultaneously, perfectly replicating the themes of the film. It's all about hope, that one unique human trait, and how it's simultaneously humanity's saving grace and fatal flaw. Sure, you can sit there and take one point of view and say the film supports one or the other, or you can see that it's both, or perhaps neither. It's definitely transcending a simple black and white picture of what defines humanity and mortality.
The film acts as sort of a mirror. It becomes what you project onto it.
For my money, it's a masterpiece. Not perfect, but an ambitious and epic film that I hope people will come to appreciate in the future, just as many stunning films were left behind upon initial release.
Foreign Jackass
Member
Near-masterpiece. One ending too many.
mightynine
Member
Thought it had a perfect end point with the blue fairy, and everything after that was completely unnecessary.
Not a bad movie, but not one I'll go out of my way to see again.
Not a bad movie, but not one I'll go out of my way to see again.
TAJ
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
>>>>I thought that A.I. was "three movies in one."<<<
It was, but I only liked the second one. The first was mediocre-to-bad. The third was awful beyond belief.
First-rate effects work, though, MUCH better than similar CG in the overrated FF:TSW, which came out the same year.
It was, but I only liked the second one. The first was mediocre-to-bad. The third was awful beyond belief.
First-rate effects work, though, MUCH better than similar CG in the overrated FF:TSW, which came out the same year.
Good, very good. I love the movie.
It does feel like two or three movies in one, but so do a lot of Kubrick movies. Full Metal Jacket is divided from boot camp to vietnam, to the warzone. Eyes Wide Shut felt the same way, the ending being of a completely different feel than what was previously happening. Even 2001 had the monkeys and then space, so I don't think it's just an A.I. thing.
And for the last time, THOSE WERE NOT ALIENS!
It does feel like two or three movies in one, but so do a lot of Kubrick movies. Full Metal Jacket is divided from boot camp to vietnam, to the warzone. Eyes Wide Shut felt the same way, the ending being of a completely different feel than what was previously happening. Even 2001 had the monkeys and then space, so I don't think it's just an A.I. thing.
And for the last time, THOSE WERE NOT ALIENS!
A.I. would've been served well by making the final ending (with the "aliens") a DVD special feature or a shorter, post-credits scene. If you've read the short story on which A.I. is based ("Supertoys Last All Summer Long"), I think you'll agree that the mood of the Blue Fairy scene makes it the 'proper' ending. The "aliens" sequence is important thematically, but it comes at too high a price.
BobbyRobby
Member
Shitty
Naked Snake
Member
I really loved A.I., and I watched it years after it came out... Which reminds me I still don't have the DVD.
The reason people think they're aliens is because:
1) They're around and all the humans are gone
2) They're constructed in a manner that looks somewhat similar to the stereotypical "grey alien," except that they're not grey.
Unless there was supposed to be that level of ambiguity, that's one of the big flaws of the film, because clearly the idea that they were aliens is quite widely held. If it was supposed to be so ambiguous, I have to question why.
EDIT: But IMO, other than the fact that it really did seem to be ending at "Blue Fairy" only to last another half hour, one of the most jarring things in the movie is Robin WIlliams as "Dr. Know."
I enjoyed the movie, but left the theatre filling unfulfilled after seeing that final act. Funny how seeing more film dulled my imagination... I really felt like it was too much.
1) They're around and all the humans are gone
2) They're constructed in a manner that looks somewhat similar to the stereotypical "grey alien," except that they're not grey.
Unless there was supposed to be that level of ambiguity, that's one of the big flaws of the film, because clearly the idea that they were aliens is quite widely held. If it was supposed to be so ambiguous, I have to question why.
EDIT: But IMO, other than the fact that it really did seem to be ending at "Blue Fairy" only to last another half hour, one of the most jarring things in the movie is Robin WIlliams as "Dr. Know."
I enjoyed the movie, but left the theatre filling unfulfilled after seeing that final act. Funny how seeing more film dulled my imagination... I really felt like it was too much.
Very, very good. The only flaw I see is some awkward dialogue in the screenplay, which must have looked good on paper but doesn't sound so good on screen (lines like "A thousand miles of fiber, yeah.")
Re: the ending: I don't see why people call in "Spielbergian", though I also think that the idea of a heartwarming, sugary "Spielbergian" movie is based more on a persistent and undeserved stereotype than anything that's actually in his films. Just like Close Encounters of the Third Kind, A.I. has a dysfunctional family that has smiles on its surface but twistedness lurking beneath, and in which all of the family members love each other only when it's in their own self-interest. In the first act, David is a robot who's programmed specifically not to be self-interested. His process of becoming human (see the references to Pinocchio throughout) is also the process of becoming selfish.
In the third act, which I believe is absolutely necessary to complete the film, we see the consequences of that selfishness. David chooses to "resurrect" his mother, even though he's advised against it, no matter what the consequences are, with no consideration of how she might feel about it (she certainly doesn't seem to like it), and no matter if it's in the absence of the rest of her family (which he's continually drawing her attention away from). He has become selfish and has therefore, by the logic of the film, become human. If anything, the tearjerking moments in which David reunites with his mother are caustic, rather than sincere.
In addition, there's an Oedipal complex established in the first act of the movie that gets resolved in the third (David "imprints" on his mother, not his father; David covers himself in perfume in order to draw his mother's attention toward him when she's going out with his father). In the third act, the father's finally out of the way (the narrator even states this directly), and David finally gets to jump into bed with his mom.
Actually, Kubrick had also planned to include Ministry in that sequence if he'd directed the movie--apparently, he was impressed by Ministry's sampling of dialogue from Full Metal Jacket on A Mind is a Terrible Thing to Taste.
Re: the ending: I don't see why people call in "Spielbergian", though I also think that the idea of a heartwarming, sugary "Spielbergian" movie is based more on a persistent and undeserved stereotype than anything that's actually in his films. Just like Close Encounters of the Third Kind, A.I. has a dysfunctional family that has smiles on its surface but twistedness lurking beneath, and in which all of the family members love each other only when it's in their own self-interest. In the first act, David is a robot who's programmed specifically not to be self-interested. His process of becoming human (see the references to Pinocchio throughout) is also the process of becoming selfish.
In the third act, which I believe is absolutely necessary to complete the film, we see the consequences of that selfishness. David chooses to "resurrect" his mother, even though he's advised against it, no matter what the consequences are, with no consideration of how she might feel about it (she certainly doesn't seem to like it), and no matter if it's in the absence of the rest of her family (which he's continually drawing her attention away from). He has become selfish and has therefore, by the logic of the film, become human. If anything, the tearjerking moments in which David reunites with his mother are caustic, rather than sincere.
In addition, there's an Oedipal complex established in the first act of the movie that gets resolved in the third (David "imprints" on his mother, not his father; David covers himself in perfume in order to draw his mother's attention toward him when she's going out with his father). In the third act, the father's finally out of the way (the narrator even states this directly), and David finally gets to jump into bed with his mom.
Flynn said:
Actually, Kubrick had also planned to include Ministry in that sequence if he'd directed the movie--apparently, he was impressed by Ministry's sampling of dialogue from Full Metal Jacket on A Mind is a Terrible Thing to Taste.
Odnetnin said:
The scene in which he plays two roles (one robot that's emotionally stable, the other of which is borderline psycho by that point in the movie) is incredible.
Yes--Al Jorgensen, the lead singer, is wearing a similar mask to the one he always wears during live shows.
LinesInTheSand
Banned
I love it.
One of my favorites movies ever, one of Spielberg's best. And how the fuck is the ending a "speilberg ending"?
That sound spretty damn depressing to me, and Kubrickian, if anything. 'Tards.
Humanity is DEAD, the Earth is living through an ice age, it's safe to assume most mammals are DEAD too, the only thing that remains are lifeless robots. Nevermind that David DIES at the end.
The ending where he's begging the blue fairy to grant him his wish chokes me up every time, my mother died 5 years ago and I can't watch it without breaking into tears. It's obviously a tacked on ending...but the ending at the point where Kubrick would have done....damn, that would have people hanging themselfs from the cinema rafters.
As Speilberg joked himself "Mankind is extinct, the earth is in a permenant ice age and robots rule the earth...how is that an 'happy ending'?"
It's amazing how much of Kubrick comes through though, even with a different director, there's plenty of classic 'brick in the movie.
I give it a B-
And yeah Teddy rocks!
As Speilberg joked himself "Mankind is extinct, the earth is in a permenant ice age and robots rule the earth...how is that an 'happy ending'?"
It's amazing how much of Kubrick comes through though, even with a different director, there's plenty of classic 'brick in the movie.
I give it a B-
And yeah Teddy rocks!
- Status