A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001) (1 Viewer)

[Peter Kline]

Todd, congratulations. You get the see gar!

 

[Morgan Jolley]

I don't think this is really blinking. When you feel pain or are crying (he sheds no tears, so its not exactly crying) you probably close your eyes because its an emotional response, not because you are wetting your eyes. I think that David is programmed to close his eyes when "crying" because its more human, but doesn't blink because he doesn't need to.

So there is a difference between closing your eyes and blinking.

 

[MichaelPe]

Thanks Todd... you just ruined the whole movie for me.

 

[todd stone]

well heck, if i noticed it, it must be blinking hehhe

 

[Tim RH]

A couple questions:

1. Why did the people at the flesh fair let Joe and especially David slip through their fingers, and just leave the place freely? It seems like they would have wanted to keep him (or them), seeing as they thought he was "unique" and "one of a kind".

2. How did the police locate Gigolo Joe outside of Dr. Know's place, and later on in Manhattan too?

 

[Rex Bachmann]

How did the police locate Gigolo Joe outside of Dr. Know's place, and later on in Manhattan too?

(From memory). He wore(or carried?) some kind of tracking device (around his neck?) by which he could be traced at all times, no?

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Teddy the Bear was the real star.

You got that too? Clearly, the most sympathetic character in the whole film. The only "tragedy" I saw at the end of this film is that "Teddy" would be left alone, if something happened to robo-boy. The passing away of mankind or even of the protagonist (who, to my mind, achieved what he wanted) didn't do a thing to me.

The faithful teddy bear is the first "cutesy" character in a Spielberg film that actually does not feel gratuitous to me or tacked on (i.e., there for merchandising purposes).

 

[Rex Bachmann]

Quote:

I'm "suggesting" that the weepiness of the ending is a Spielberg feature and not a Kubrick feature, as I've suggested all along. If you wanna weep, weep. Kubrick films are, generally speaking, not "weepers".

 

[Tim RH]

(From memory). He wore(or carried?) some kind of tracking device (around his neck?) by which he could be traced at all times, no?

No, he did have a tracking device just above his "heart" (if he was human), but he cut that out deliberately to stop them from finding him. So to my mind, it doesn't make much sense. Anyone else know?

 

[Peter Apruzzese]

Rex,

Watch Barry Lyndon. See the funeral for Barry's son. Tell me then that Kubrick's films can't cause "weeping".

 

[Richard Kim]

No, never have. I have seen Kubrick's more mature war film Full Metal Jacket, and that's pretty grim both in scenes in the barracks and those on the battlefield. "Heroes" blown to pieces; still no weeping.

Paths of Glory ranks up there among Kubrick's best works. Just try and watch the ending with the German singer and not feel misty eyed.

 

[Scott McGillivray]

I already gave my opinions of this film in the Software area, but I would like to add to this discussion as well.
I agree that Teddy was a very likeable and tragic character. He is steadfast and loyal. He shows concern for David from start to finish. And, as others hav pointed out, seemed to have learned to love as well. In fact, his love for David seemed more sincere than David's fanatical/obsessive love for his mother. And in the end, David just ditches him. Teddy is left standing on the bed, now forever alone. David never seemed to give a hoot about Teddy through the whole movie. He just took him for granted.
*sigh* I am taking this too seriously! This movie evoked some great emotions from me and has left me thinking about and just dying to talk about it to anyone who has seen it. By far one of the saddest/beautiful/intelligent movies I have ever seen.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Just try and watch the ending with the German singer and not feel misty eyed.

Irrelevant triva alert: a German singer who would later become Mrs. Kubrick and contribute many interesting paintings to the set decoration of future SK films.
Regards,

 

[Bill Catherall]

Larry - Did you not watch any of the extras? Spielberg was Kubrick's choice. They collaborated on the project from very early on. Therefore, even if Kubrick directed it himself it would have still been the vision of both directors. Spielberg was not a substitute. He fulfilled Kubrick's wishes at the request of his family.

 

[Luc D]

Therefore, even if Kubrick directed it himself it would have still been the vision of both directors. Spielberg was not a substitute. He fulfilled Kubrick's wishes at the request of his family.

Had Kubrick still been alive I think it would have been a very different film. To start with Kubrick did not write the screenplay, something he's done on every single one of his films (except Spartacus). His only real contribution to A.I. is a treatment he wrote some years earlier. This was a Spielberg script (his first in twenty years and oh boy did it ever show), and it was a Spielberg film. Unless Kubrick had a hand in at least writing or editing it (impossible of course), then this really wasn't much of collaboration.

There really isn't any way to know if Spielberg fulfilled Kubrick's wishes or not, and no fluff piece on a DVD will tell you either.

 

[Patrick Sun]

ScottMc: To quote Rick Springfield:
"Love hurts when only one's in love."
LarryB, while you are one of the bigger detractors of this film, I find comfort in knowing that it takes a daring film to force many of us to question the themes raised in this film regardless of one's predisposition to find fault in the "perceived" execution of the filmmakers' visions. The sheer amount of discussion that A.I. has generated gives credence that it hit many people on a level that is well under the superficial layer of most generic of films.
But fear not, I was a detractor of Gladiator, so I understand that side of the fence pretty well.

 

[Bill Catherall]

Unless Kubrick had a hand in at least writing or editing it (impossible of course), then this really wasn't much of collaboration.

They had fax machines set up where they would personally fax back and forth as they (did indeed) collaborated on the project. I'm sure Spielberg got a pretty good grasp of what Kubrick's vision was for the film by working on it in the many years they did together. Of course, that's just my pointless speculation.

 

[Ken_McAlinden]

Kubrick would never use disruptive or disorienting continuity in one of his films. Could you imagine him doing something as ridiculous as flashing forward thousands or even millions of years with a single cut with no title cards to a world that bears almost no resemblance to the world before the cut. I {2001: A Space Odyssey} simply could not {Dawn of Man} imagine him {Bone to space ship} doing it. I mean seriously, why would he even consider{The Shining} disorienting {Bathroom conversation} the audience {cut to reverse angle breaking "imaginary line" editorial rule} like that?

Regards,

Mr. Subliminal

 

[Richard Kim]

There really isn't any way to know if Spielberg fulfilled Kubrick's wishes or not, and no fluff piece on a DVD will tell you either.

All the extras on the AI DVD were produced by Laurent Bouzerau, and if you've seen any of his documentaries on other DVDs (Taxi Driver, Psycho) you'd know that they're anything but fluff pieces.

 

[David Oliver]

I watched the first hour of this last night and have a very *minor* question. In the first scene, why does William Hurt ask meacha to undress/