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

[Richard Stammer]

Ron, Thanks for your enthusiastic review of the movie. However, I consider it a real masterpiece for the following reasons (spoiler alert)

Ron, You're probably too nice of a person to have seen the real irony at the end of the movie. Taking into context all of Kubrick's movies, he had a consistent theme of man's inhumanity to man. A.I. is a capstone to that philosophy. Not only has man managed to kill his species off, he has very possibly created a race of machines that adore him, even though in Kubrick's world, man is pretty much of a shit to himself and others. Finally, at the end of the movie, man (in the form of the robot's reconstituted mother) has been reduced to the level of a "one-night-stand." It doesn't get more bleak and nasty than that, imho.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

I was probably going to rent this via Netflix before purchasing it, but based on Ron's review and the comments in this thread I will be purchasing it. Didn't see it in the theater.

 

[Joel C]

Richard-

I believe Ron sees the irony (or at least something similar). He just didn't like the way Spielberg placed it within a "golden light" Spielberg moment.

I though the sentimental final scene worked, as it enhanced the "irony" (I don't know if it is strictly irony here) of the ending.

Is that irony?

David was programmed to love and searched for his mother's love, but only finally received it from a clone of his mother that, with all her memories altered to focus only on David, he got that same false love in return, but being a machine, did not notice?

Or is that just a funny coincidence?

Though if Kubrick did it, I suspect the ending would've felt darker, more a "baby monkey/wire mommy" deal, with David not realizing it. Some of the story treatments indicated as such, when the mecha's recreation of David's home had big gaping holes for Henry and Martin's rooms, and David did not aknowledge their existence (because he was only imprinted on Monica). The essential themes remain, though, and I like Spielberg's version of it. Sacriladge, I know, but I enjoy Spielberg more than Kubrick, though Kubrick is more" respectable." If Spielberg continues to make leaps foward though, I may not feel wrong for liking him more.

 

[Ronald Epstein]

Gentlemen,

It's amazing to sit here and read these last

two or three messages that really give a totally

different perspective on the film that I never

picked up.

Again, I have to stress that I had no problem

with the story's ending. What bothered me was

that it was told as if it were a Disney movie.

Spielberg fluffed it up so much with sappy visuals

and music that it didn't even match the first two

hours of the film.

If Kubrik had directed this film from start to

finish, I somehow doubt the ending would have

looked so Disney-ish.

 

[Malcolm R]

If Kubrik had directed this film from start to finish . . .

If Kubrick had directed this film, it would still be shooting and likely not hit theaters until sometime in 2005.

 

[Joel C]

Kubrick could not have done this movie because he couldn't get it done without the kid aging too much. A kid grows a LOT in a year.

AI was shot in only 3 months, so it was ok. Harry Potter was shot in 4-6 and Harry's voice changed right near the end of production.

 

[Sam E. Torres]

just out of curiousity-why do administrators not even seem to care that these threads for new dvd releases always end up to be primarily feedback about the movie rather than the dvd?

 

[Damin J Toell]

just out of curiousity-why do administrators not even seem to care that these threads for new dvd releases always end up to be primarily feedback about the movie rather than the dvd?

probably because it's not a purely technical review, as Ron tends to give his thoughts on the film itself. and, especially in the case of a pre-release review like this, there isn't really much to discuss with regard to the DVD since none of us have it.

DJ

 

[Sam E. Torres]

i just remember when admins would be upset when movies were discussed in the software section, and now they seem to be doing it themselves...hey, i have questions about the dvd that i don't own yet-does anyone have a back cover scan of it?

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Admins still sometimes get upset when forum feedback discussions crop up in the software forum, too.

Regards,

 

[Seth Paxton]

Sony W400Q LCD projector to 105" screen, DTS using Denon 3801 with NHT speakers.
Looked and sounded great. Appears to be 1.78 rather than 1.85 but little surprise there. The film was a tad more grainy than I remember, but still looks very good. Plenty of bright and colorful visuals throughout.
The DTS track seemed to have plenty of depth to it, though I sometimes found the music muddling the dialog just a bit, but nothing serious. Certainly some boomy action spots in the film, like when Jude and Haley steal the aircraft or at the Flesh Fair when bot are getting destroyed while the rock band plays at the same time.
The effects still look great, a real showoff disc for the colors and FX. I love the look when the Flesh Fair moom comes over the forest. Great visuals.
Again, the color palette is deep in the film which makes it good for showing off the system, despite having some grain and being only a 1.85 film. It's not going to be clean and showy like Fast and the Furious for example.
Didn't get to mess with the extras, but who are we kidding. Do you really need to read this to know if you are going to buy it?
Great film that will probably climb back up my top 10-20 list. Not sure if it will go back into the top 10 or not.
BTW, first time I saw it was at the Cinerama in Seattle, so that was a good presentation too.

 

[JenaroM]

I bought AI this past weekend and saw all the special features. A very good release! My only complaint is that, from my point of view, has too much grain on the movie. It wasn't perfect as I would hoped it would be.

 

[Sean Patrick]

well, i agree with Ron. Ending seemed fine thematically, it was the way it was presented.

The voices of the "characters" in question at the end of the film seemed like they were out of an animated disney film. Didn't fit the tone of what was actually going on.

 

[Simon Massey]

Sort of like a "fairy tale" then ? Isn't that how the superficial story is presented anyway (Pinocchio ?)

Also , if the film had ended under the water, which I know many would appear to have preferred, then the way that ending was presented was very similar in tone, it's just that the meaning and theme is different.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

The voices of the "characters" in question at the end of the film seemed like they were out of an animated disney film. Didn't fit the tone of what was actually going on.

Regards,

 

[Yumbo]

The discs come in a soft cover, and feels flimsy.

Sound is good in certain moments (helicoptor escape).

The score shines.

The picture is good, with vibrant colours in the flesh fair scenes.

I did get a shock at 1.55 but overall was pleased.

I liked the sci-fi nature of the movie and would recommend it.

Osment was pretty good.

 

[Eric F]

As long as we're talking about plot, Spielberg wouldn't know the meaning of the word "irony" if it bit him on the a**. I suppose you could call the ending of Raiders "ironic", but I'd say "cynical" is probably a better summation. Look at the endings of his films as time passes. He's clearly mellowed over the years.

Kubrik on the otherhand was all about irony. That's why AI is so fascinating and confusing at the same time.

I took the conclusion of AI as literally as possible. People have told me that the ending was exactly how Kurbik wanted it; I have serious misgivings about that. If this is what Kubrik wanted, I suspect Spielberg handled it as Spielberg would; straight, which is why it didn't work for so many people.

 

[Mark Palermo]

The ending of AI is clearly not presented "straight." It's tragic, misanthropic, and melancholic, but has the tone of a Hallmark card. How is this not ironic?

Mark

 

[Joel C]

Well put, Mark!

 

[Sean Patrick]

a few posts back i criticized the voice acting of the "characters" at the end. i stand by that, and i think it reflects what Ron was also seeing as Disney-esque.

but I watched it again, and after reading some of the other recent comments, I am beginning to think that other than that one particular gripe i had with the voices, there was nothing at ALL Disney about that ending.

My brother commented to me after seeing the film in the theaters that it was sentimental crap, which is why he hated it. At the time, I agreed that the ending was sentimental Spielberg pablum, but I liked the rest of the film enough for it to get my thumbs up.

After watching the movie again tonight, I now view the ending of A.I. as one of the least sentimental endings to a film I've ever seen. In fact, i think it's basically the polar opposite of a sentimental ending, and that it might be the most nightmarish sequence of events in the whole film, if not of all time.

The interaction in the last scene is one of the most disturbing things i've seen in a while, and i don't know why it didn't hit me like this the first time i saw it.

None of the joy or happiness in that scene is based on reality. I agree with one of the above statements about the very subtle gesture Teddy makes in the last scene of the film. it's chilling, and a perfect summation of the reasons i now think the end is a nightmare vision. there is no Disney in those scenes. none.

PS - What I like about the back-and-forth in this thread is that it's given me a whole new perspective on a film I already like a lot but had small reservations with. And there hasn't been much fighting. Now if I could only replace some of the voice acting that I hear through the film, it would probably be my favorite movie of all time!!!