A.I. -- I hated, hated, hated this movie!! (To borrow a phrase from Roger Ebert)

Since it's not listed, I have to post this here. Just saw it today, and I have heard a little about it. Now, I love well-done sci-fi movies, character movies, etc. This movie actually had me in tears, but only because I was bored to tears! I thought it ended at least three times. I have to agree with Harry of Aint-it-cool news that it should have ended where he suggested -- it may have redeemed it a bit in my eyes. I think a good hour could have been edited from it, for the better.

But I have not felt so vehemently against a movie like this for a long time. I'm also embarassed that my "handle" relates to it, although I chose it long before this movie came out. Could have been worse -- I could have been "aifan"!

Sorry, I know this is the lamest of "it sucks!"- type reviews, but I'm not prepared to put any more thought or time into examining this flick.

By Spornan on Sunday, July 08, 2001 - 07:51 am:


I too was wildly disappointed by this film. I was hoping for a "The Positronic Man" type film, but instead we got a by-the-numbers cryfest. It was long, it was boring, and it was mechanically (ironic, huh?) depressing. Almost as if a warning light would come on the screen "FEEL BAD NOW"

It wasn't a thought-provoking, intelligent film. And it wasn't a mindless summer blockbuster. It was pretty much just a waste of 2 and a half hours.

Good acting in it though.

(Copied Spornan's post from the other board since he posted on it -- hope that's OK! --aifix)

I kinda liked it.

I wasn't too happy with the ending but I thought it was a pretty solid film overall.

No problem. Thanks

No problem. Thanks

Bah. Crazy double posting.

At this point, if you're gonna do a film about an artificial intelligence, and whether or not they're alive/have feelings/have rights/should be judged by their actions and not their surface, etc., you're gonna have to put some new slant or angle on it. If you've read Asmimov, seen The Bicentennial Man, Pinocchio, Frankenstein, any episode of Trek with Data in it, then all the territory's been charted. This film offered nothing new on the premise. The part that I liked was the ending with the aliens (or whatever they were), and even that didn't redeem the rest of the movie.

I think the best character was Gigolo Joe. But i still didn't know why the poilice were after him. Was is becasue he found that woman dead? He could have been a witness again the guy who killed her, because he records everything he sees. Or is Human society so bent on hatred of robot that thye will just dissasemble him. An why did he rip off his ID number thing on his chest? I did like the charater, but I dind't understand his stroy.

I also agree with aifix. I though the movie endined three times before it actually did.

Once, where he finds the other davids and falls into the ocean.

Another, where he is in the sub looking at the blue fairy, and the narrator start to talk. ( i was so sure that this was the end, I started to get up out of my chair)

And once more during some converstaion with the alien, before his mom is cloned.

What is that technobabbly excuse that his mom can only live one day? It's like once they have lived in the space-time continuum, they cannot be replicated. Am i right? Well, we can clone things. We clone sheep. And they havent died, just becasue there isn't supposed to be two of them during the same space-time. None of that alien's explanation seeme to make sense at all.

I'm surprised the Alien/Advanced robot didn't just say, "We can bring back anyone you want, David...but only in a sad kind of way."

Seemed like that was the rule for the entire movie. Blegh.

BTW: The best character was Teddy!

I'll agree there were bits that I liked. Yeah, Teddy was pretty cool. Bet we'll be seeing something like him in a few years (but probably without the self-sewing/repair feature).

I don't think many kids over five years old use "Mommy" all the time (instead of "Mom".)

I remember I really detested The Shining the first time I saw it, but it grew on me over the years and now regard it as a personal classic. This one had scenes that do stay with me, and it's stayed on my mind more than most other movies have. I think with a good hour's editing this could have been a much better, even great, movie.

A bit of marvelous acting -- As "Mom" prepares to imprint David, he watches her with a vapid smile. As the imprinting takes place, his smile disappears and is replaced by a look of realization and absolute love.

The problem I had with the movie is that I felt nothing for the robot. He wasn't real to me. I never got the sense that the robot really felt anything.

I think this is entirely due to the way the material is presented to the audience. i think that the movie should have rather started when she "activated" David. We, as an audience, don't realize he's a robot right away. Instead, we see David interacting with his parents in kind of an awkward way and we don't really know what's going on. but it gives us an opportunity to become attached to the robot.

*Then* you bring in the brother, revived from cryostasis. And the brother starts supplanting David. And David doesn't understand why, and the audience doesn't understand why. Then you drop the bombshell: He's not a real boy. By this time the audience will have identified with David (much like the audience identifies with Edward Scissorhands early on).

The movie embraces the Pinnochio story. It's trying to be this futuristic Pinnochio but forgets that aside from being made of wood, Pinnochio *is* a real boy. From the moment he's born, he acts very human. Not so with David.

We're constantly reminded that David is a robot. That swimming scene where he freaks out because the kid is going to cut him? What was that? Was that emotion genuine? Or was it a self-defense mechanism? The movie is very vague about it. We were never told that David could fear something. So I assume it's just a defense mechanism (and he doesn't seem to fear anything else throughout the movie).

It also didn't help that the parents (especially the mother) weren't very likeable people.

No, I think the movie would have been better off either revealing that David was a machine later or giving him more to feel.

And the movie is way too talky, which is remarkable in a Spielberg film. Spielberg generally likes to show, not tell, the story. Not so here. The movie starts with a long, prattling sequence about creating a robot that can feel love. And the movie ends with all kinds of technobabble on how they can replicate the mother. Spielberg even bashes us over the head with the lock of hair. Rather than it be something that Teddy (who *is* the best character) just hands over to David, Spielberg has the bear tell us where he got it and when. Spielberg does what he's never done before: He's assumed his audience is stupid.

The aliens replicate the mother, claiming she can't live more than a day. Fine. They use the lock of hair. Fine. Except that the mother never loved David as much as the replicant mother does.

I did like a lot of the sci-fi elements of the film. I even liked the whole role reversal at the film's end where David was the real person (being the only representative of humanity) and the mother was the artificial contruct programmed to love him. But the film was way too mechanical. And try as it might, I could not feel anything.

I will, however, say that Haley Joel Osmont is an amazing actor. The abandonment scene where he goes from stone cold to freak out is incredible (and reminds me of the Henry Thomas screen test on my ET laserdisc set). And I wish I could have liked this film more. I really do.

It was Spielberg trying to be Kubrick for an audience he assumes won't understand... Never underestimate the intelligence of your audience...

I think one of the biggest problems about this movie is that David was forced to love his "Mommy." It wasn't a natural love, and so then why should we care?

The most intriguing thing about an artificial intelligence is watching them grow up and evolve, like Data, or like Andrew the Positronic man. If they love someone, it's because that love is earned. Instead, we are reminded that David is not real over and over again, because of his unnatural love for Monica.

The movie seemed to be basically a lesson in depression. Take a cute little boy, make him love a mother who can never love him back, and then have her abandon him in the woods. Why didn't they just flash a sign that said "CRY NOW" on the top of the screen?

The movie trailer says "He is artificial. His love is not" but that's not really true. His love is very artificial, and the audience is reminded of that all the time. It makes us wonder why we are supposed to care about this boy, who is not a boy. Just an advanced simulation. He doesn't feel real love, he feels artificial love. Love that is forced upon him, and forced upon us.

I agree with Spornan

Teddy was the best character.

Mikey: i think that the movie should have rather started when she "activated" David. We, as an audience, don't realize he's a robot right away. Instead, we see David interacting with his parents in kind of an awkward way and we don't really know what's going on. but it gives us an opportunity to become attached to the robot.

*Then* you bring in the brother, revived from cryostasis. And the brother starts supplanting David. And David doesn't understand why, and the audience doesn't understand why. Then you drop the bombshell: He's not a real boy. By this time the audience will have identified with David (much like the audience identifies with Edward Scissorhands early on).

Luigi Novi: I think that's a much better idea, Mikey. I also didn't understand why the mother was so adamant to her husband that a robot would not be a substitute for their son, but went ahead and got the robot and imprinted it on her anyway. I would point out, however, that the audience knew Edward Scissorhands was artificial from the start, and we even saw his pre-human-looking form before Johnny Depp showed up.

Spornan: The movie trailer says "He is artificial. His love is not"...

Luigi Novi: Actually, Spornan, it was "His love is real. But he is not." You inverted it.

And not only that Spornan, the ship isn't even at warp in the beginning of the movie!

Given the above scenario, would they have even been able to keep a "surprise" that David was actually a robot? They would have revealed it in the previews! Granted, I would have preferred it that way also. I avoid watching most previews because they almost always show one of the final scenes that gives it away. Even so, that wouldn't have been a final scene so they undoubtedly would have shown it in the preview.

Maybe I read this somewhere, but I don't think David blinked once in the entire movie. I'm not about to sit through it again (soon) to find out if that's true.

Luigi Novi:: I would point out, however, that the audience knew Edward Scissorhands was artificial from the start, and we even saw his pre-human-looking form before Johnny Depp showed up.

The elderly Winona Ryder does deliver a line of dialogue early on about a scientist creating a man with scissors for hands.

but when did we see his pre-human form before Johnny Depp showed up? My recollection is that the first time we see Edward is when Diane Weist comes up to the castle. And it's not until the flashback scenes that we see the scientist get the inspiration for buidling Edward and later teaching Edward.

My suggestion wasn't necessarily to keep the twist a secret, though that would have been the best scenario. My point in the Scissorhands analogy is that the audience is emotionally bonded with Edward from the start because he acts like a human from the start, long before he's shown in his pre-human, unfeeling form.

Oops! Sorry, Mikey. I mistakenly remember the "construction sequence" as being in the beginning. My bad!

Okay, let me get this straight. At the beginning of they movie it said that we already melted the polar ice caps. Right?

So, if we melted the ice caps that would make it very warm becasue of the Greenhouse effect. Right?

So how come at the end of the movie, we are suffereing through another ice age. Wouldn't it be too hot to have one?

Actually massive climatic changes like an ice age can happen despite global warming. global warming is actually kinda odd, once all the ocean temps rise the jet streams and weather systems kinda stop and well depending on what's going on, a part of the earth could very well be submerged in an glacial mass. It should be noted too, that the film shows water flowing down over the ice like a melting ice cube so prehaps that is just for a far, far, far future New York winter is like.

conclusion: drastic temperature change and both the positive and negative directions.

Please visit http://www.screenit.com/movies/2001/a_i_artificial_intelligence.html to read most of the spoilers from the film. I did before I saw the film. Though I knew what would happen, I wasn't sure about the sequence. Therefore, I wasn't completely disappointed with the film.

I saw the film partly because I wanted to be reminded somewhat of that old comedy show SMALL WONDER with Vicki the robot. Does anyone on this board remember that show? It had aired from 1985 -1989. Teddy reminded me somewhat of Teddy Ruxpin, even though I never had that toy!

I'm not sure if I'd recommend this film to my young Orthodox cousin. Like me, he's Learning Different/Support/Disabled. Also, he's adopted. This film is rated PG - 13 partly because of Joe and some scary scenes. Maybe my aunt and uncle will rent the film and fast forward through some of the inappropriate and boring scenes. I think that this would be better than seeing the film in the theater.

i saw "Small Wonder." I still vaguely remember some of it. And I did have a Teddy Ruxpin that talked.

God, that was an awful series.

I missed the first fifteen minutes or so of the movie. Did I miss anything worth renting the videocassette upon release? Aside from this, I still dispute with the person with whom I saw the movie whether or not those tall, lanky and obviously energy-based entities at the conclusion were in fact aliens. Instead, he insists they are actually advanced descendants of the android models that were still current when David was around. In other words, the androids survived the world and further developed themselves. However, I was under the impression they were charting the planet, seeking to scrutinize and comprehend the planet's history. Honestly, I would have had it that the "aliens" were either A) human beings evolved two thousand years or B) an extraterrestrial species that perceive David to ironically be the remnants of the human species.

Bit of spoiler space. La la la la la la la la la


They were advanced androids. You could see the gears turning inside their bodies. They were looking to study humans to determine their own existence, I guess.

I dunno, I try not to think too much about the "2000 years later" part of the movie. It was all too surreal.

I was also bored with this film, although I liked parts of it a little. One thing I had noticed was when the robots are chased thru the woods and there's that nannybot that's missing most of her head. When you see her in profile her faceplate is understandably thin, but when she turns her head and you can slightly see inside it there doesn't appear to be any indication of her mechanical eyes or any ligaments or cables or whatever that could control her facial movements, or at least not that I could see.

I also didn't buy how David could be reactivated after being frozen for 2 millenia. Wouldn't his insides have been damaged beyond all hope of repair after so long a time frozen? Also, by the time the advanced robots found him I figured that the fallen Ferris wheel would've long since collapsed before the water froze, crushing the aquacopter and David along with it.

The best character was Teddy!
Definitely! And was it just me or did anyone else think he sounded a bit like HAL? Not the sound of the voice so much as how he spoke, his inflections.

I saw the film partly because I wanted to be reminded somewhat of that old comedy show SMALL WONDER with Vicki the robot. Does anyone on this board remember that show?
Yes, and not only that but the girl who played Vicki is from the same town that Radar lives in and where I lived for about 10 years.

How many celeb voices did anyone recognize in this film? I recognized Chris Rock as that black robot who was shot out of the cannon at the Flesh Fair (ironic term, considering the robots aren't made of flesh at all), and Robin Williams as Dr. Know, although both of those were obvious. I found out later that Meryl Streep did the Blue Fairy's voice.

Here's the one thing I really didn't get in this movie: David shows up at his creator's place and finds another David there. Because his brain is wired to love his mommy, and because this other David represents an obstacle to that love being returned, David 1 violently destroys David 2. I figured they were showing how dangerous it is to create such unalterable love in an artificial being. But then the scientist comes in and tells David (the one that isn't laying in pieces on the floor) that his successful attempt to make a robot is a wonderful thing. OK, does he not see the dead robot? The one that was brutally smashed because a fellow robot loved just a little too much?

OK, I hated this movie so much I bought the DVD. (dang marketers!)

Reminds me that I hated Kubrick's The Shining at first, then it grew on me. I still feel like I was manipulated and robbed (and it has several MAJOR nits), but I like cool SFX and am looking forward to seeing the extras on the disc. Plus, I got it on sale.

Ok, so the ice caps melt and flood a large portion of the world. I can buy that. However, 2000 years later, we see that the water levels are at the same level that the were when David found the Blue Fairy. Unless the freezing started around New York, it should have either ended up well away from the sea or bulldozed under by a glacier. During the last ice age, as the ice cap expanded, the sea levels dropped. It should have happened again this time as well. As the temperatures dropped, and the ice caps reformed, the waters should have receaded.

So, to keep the robot population down, robots are taken apart in the Flesh Fairs. Aren't they being extremely wasteful? Resorces are so scarce that they started using mecha to do stuff since they don't require any more resources other than contruction. Wouldn't it be less wasteful to repair/reformat the robots, rather than dumping them in the middle of nowhere.

A lot of you pointed out things I noticed. Though, I do have the DVD of it, in fact, it's two DVDs, with special features on Disc two. And the features are cool, talking about how they went into the special effects, including how they did the flooded and ice covered New York City. One thing I did hear over and over, was that the thin like creatures at the end, were in fact robot decendants of the robots of David's day. Their little conversation when they found David mentioned finding David and being excited at that he knew living people. Oh, I can just hear it from David. I hear living people!!! Sorry about that, that just hit me all of a sudden.
Though one thing I find hard to believe, that humanity would die out in two thousand years. I do remember that in David's time, couples needed a license to have a child, and it seems that it might be to have just one child, but even then I still think there would have been some living people still alive.
Also, where do the future robots live or exist. In the Souther Hemisphere of Earth?
Like Spornan, I also found the 2000 year part a bit surreal as well.
I glad to see that in this movie, when the polar caps did melt, it wasn't as catastrophic as it was in "Waterworld"

Global warming. Now that's funny!

I only recently discovered that Speilberg likes to make a personal imprint on his films. On his appearance on "Inside the Actor's Studio", he was discussing the scene in Poltergiest where the tree smashes through the window and grabs the boy. He said he was inspired by the tree outside his window as a boy in Haddonfield, NJ.

Now in A.I., Speilberg has David set out from Haddonfield to go into the Big City, which was nameless, as far as I remember. But you had to cross a river to get there, so could it be Philadelphia ("I spent a week in Philadelphia one day...")?

Here's the Big Giant Hairy Nit: if the polar ice caps had melted and New York City was under that much water, then Philadelphia would be also...as well as all of southern Jersey, including Haddonfield (not that I'm complaining - Princeton under 50 feet of water might not be a bad thing...), because it's just that close to sea level.

Ah, well, there's so much else that's uncomfortable with the film, why pick on this...?

Taoisearch, the big city was called Rouge City.

Dia duit Taoiseach! Love the name!

I really liked this movie. Not SORT of liked, but REALLY liked. It's cold and quiet and lonely out here all by myself.

Chirp, chirp.

Some of the ideas posted in this thread are very good ones, anonymous internet strangers.

Another bloated waste of time.