DVD Review HTF REVIEW: "A.I. Artificial Intelligence" (1 Viewer)

[Carl C]

Good review, Ron!
Actually, my biggest problem with the DVD is that it doesn't contain all the cool TV Spots... or even all the Theatrical Trailers (there were SIX TV Spots and THREE trailers total... the disc has 2 Theatrical Trailers and that's it).
:frowning:
Maybe it was some kind of rights issue with Warner Bros over the other trailer and the TV Spots, because I can't for the life of me figure out why they were left off the Bonus Disc (which isn't even DVD-9, by the way).
My only hope is that they are on there somewhere as an Easter Egg or something. HUGE oversight if not the case.
`Carl

 

[Damin J Toell]

I don't see why the fact that he acting in his capacity as a businessman should excuse him

it's not an excuse, it's a matter of logic. you're fabricating a necessary connection where none exists. "if a filmmaker allows a P&S version to be released, the P&S version is as then necessarily equally artistically acceptable to him" just doesn't function as a validly logical statement.

DJ

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

For some reason, people who don't like the ending since the films release have been associating it with Spielberg and all of the prior stuff that they liked with Kubrick. The post blue fairy ending is very much like what Kubrick had in his treatments and is nearly perfect, IMHO. Personally, the things I think Kubrick would have done much differently are the flesh fair, the Gigolo Joe characterization, and probably the final shot, but Spielberg did an admirable job, IMHO.

This is by far my favorite film of last year with "Memento" being a distant second. It's interesting that all of Kubrick's films from "Barry Lyndon" through "Eyes Wide Shut" have been met with mixed critical and audience reaction and then gradually risen in esteem over subsequent years. This may be the most Kubrickian thing about Spielberg's film in the end.

Regards,

 

[DaveF]

(sigh) Perhaps it's too soon, but I think A.I. cries out for a commentary track from a film critic e.g. as Ebert has done for Dark City and Citizen Kane. I would really like to hear critical commentary about the film's construction, plot devices, etc.
Regardless, I'm looking forward to purchasing this when it's released.
So unfair, taunting us with this review a month before we can get our grubby hands on it :frowning:

 

[John Berggren]

Thanks for the review. This was one of my top 5 or 6 films from the last year. I can't wait to own this set.

 

[Scott-C]

Ron,

Thanks for the review - this one goes towards the top of my must-see list.

Thanks again for taking the time to review this and other DVDs for the membership.

 

[Jon_B]

Thanks for the review Ron. I haven't seen this film yet and have managed to avoid all the spoilers. I can't wait to check it out.

Jon

 

[Felix Martinez]

The problem is, there is an evident struggle to tell this story through the eyes of the two filmmakers. For nearly two hours, the film is clearly Kubrik, full of dark and twisted storyline and visuals. Suddenly, as if a light switch was turned on, the film becomes filled with Spielberg's Disneyesque vision, creating a sappy ending.

The controversial "sappy" ending/4th act "flash forward" is what Kubrick had in mind, according to his treatment - not a Spielberg invention.

 

[Andy_S]

It was all Kubrick.
Here's a huge FAQ that can be found here: http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/faq/index2.html
Note this was written before AI was made.
I'll just quote the relevant part:
"Kubrick's final collaborator on the 'A.I' script was English novelist Sara Maitland whom he felt was necessary in shaping the story into a cohesive whole. "By the time I came to the project it had become enormous, unwieldy and unfocused," said Ms. Maitland. Upon perusing the piles of unfinished scripts, she concluded that the story needed to make emotional sense as a myth or fairy tale does, and believes that Kubrick realized this. In fact Kubrick also was adamant that the story should work in terms of myth. "He never referred to the film as 'A.I.'; he always called it 'Pinocchio.' "
"He decided to make this film because he wanted people to shift to a more positive view of A.I., he was quite open to me about that. Kubrick was fascinated by artificial intelligence and fond of robots, which he regarded as a more environmentally adaptable form of human being. He said, 'I think of them as I'd like to think of my great-grandchildren.' And he's very fond of his grandchildren."
It was the relationship between David and his mother that most occupied Kubrick and Sara Maitland. An alcoholic whose 'Bloody Mary' cocktails David would mix for her in a vain attempt to win her affection. The mother was the to be emotional center of the film that would eventually come full-circle.
At the story's conclusion, the robots that have inherited the Earth use David's memories to reconstruct, in virtual form, the apartment where he had lived with his parents. Because his memories are subjective, the mother is much more vividly realized than the father, and his stepsister's room is not there at all; it is just a hole in the wall.
For Ms. Maitland, the film would end with David preparing a Bloody Mary for his mother, the juice a brighter red than in real life: "He hears her voice, and that's it. We don't see him turn to see her." Kubrick, however, wanted a coda in which the new race of robots, because of a technological limitation, cannot keep the mother alive after reviving her. The movie would end with David in his mother's bedroom, watching her slowly disappear.
Ms. Maitland was displeased this scenario, and was furious with Kubrick for insisting on it. "It must have been a very strong visual thing for him," she says, "because he wasn't usually stupid about story. He hired me because I knew about fairy stories, but would not listen when I told him, 'You can have a failed quest, but you can't have an achieved quest and no reward.'"

 

[Ronald Epstein]

My problem is not WHAT the ending was.

It is HOW it was told.

It just comes off as being too Disney

against a film that up until the 1:55 mark

was totally dark.

 

[Kwang Suh]

My problem is not WHAT the ending was.
It is HOW it was told.
It just comes off as being too Disney
against a film that up until the 1:55 mark
was totally dark.

I wonder how many people missed this. I know a ton of "professional" reviewers did.

 

[Malcolm R]

I agree that the dual versions are probably mostly a business decision. Sad fact is that lots of rental stores would buy fewer copies if it was widescreen only, and fewer retail customers might purchase it for the same reason.

At the box office, the movie played more like a Kubrick film than a Spielberg film. I think this dual version release is one way to try and maximize the home video sales in order to make up the difference.

Artistic principles are compromised all the time for the sake of the bottom line. Unfortunately, these compromises are often necessary, at least at first, in order to finance additional artistic ventures in the future.

I think we should be happy it's available in both versions. Not only can we fans have the OAR version, but there can also be some solace in the fact that the FS version will be rented/purchased by a number of J6P's who might have passed it by, thereby exposing the film to a wider audience who might possibly enjoy and appreciate it. (though, of course, we all know they'd appreciate it more in OAR....but you can't change the world in a day).

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

I find it interesting that one would not find a future Earth where all human life is extinct
dark. Yikes! What would be dark enough!
One of the intriguing thematic conceits of the film is that the notion that "love conquers all" is not necessarily a comforting one.
Thanks for the review, Ron. I am definitely looking forward to this release.
Regards,

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Kwang,

People aren't as dumb as you make them

out to be.

Most people knew exactly what the creatures were.

 

[Kwang Suh]

Not the people in the theatre I went to
Oh, I'm not blaming the people. It is somewhat ambiguous. But that's why I love the movie. Things weren't bonked on my head.

 

[Aaron Croft]

I saw this movie twice, with a total of 7 different people. My brother and I were the only ones that "got" what Kwang is talking about.
One of my freinds still argues with me till this day about the very subject. I can't wait for the DVD to come out!!!
Ron: I've always wondered something.. why do you make your posts so narrow???? I personally find it hard to read that way. Just wanted to ask
-Aaron

 

[Coressel]

I agree with Ron about the ending. Like I said earlier, it's not what happens, it's what "key" it's in.

I know the ending was Kubrick's concept, but I bet if Kubrick had lived to produce the project he wouldn't have liked John Williams' slush oozing under the final scenes.

 

[Adam Lenhardt]

What you take in is what you take out with films like this. Like 2001, there are the people who totally love every part of it, the people who thing the majority of the film is awesome but hate the ending, and the people who are totally alienated by the film. For 2001, I fell into the second group. I just really don't like the victorian room ending. I get it intellectually, but it just doesn't click with me, like it does with, say, Jack Briggs. The ending to A.I. didn't click with Ron, but it did with me. To some, it plays like a tack on sap ending. To me, it's the final plunge... the rest of the movie had just been progressing up the high dive. This is when everything comes together, cruelly. David does not really love. He is fufilling his programmed need for love from his mother. He will do anything to get love from his mother, or anything that his program defines as his mother. Humankind is a passing memory. He acheives one day of artifical bliss. His program has completed it's task. He shuts down.. And with him, the last remains of the human race.
This isn't to say that Ron (or anyone else that doesn't like the end) don't "get" it. It just doesn't grab them like it grabs some of us.

 

[Sam Davatchi]

I didn't get it that they were not Aliens. I have to see it again. I have seen it only once. But as long as I remember from that one viewing, everything was suggesting that they came from a distant planet!

 

[RobR]

I really wish people would stop using "That's what Kubrick intended" for the ending or anything done in A.I. Logic should tell you that A.I. would've been a completely different film had Kubrick directed it. It's impossible for another director to duplicate or even come close to anything Kubrick would have done.