[mcmullanbrush]

I have just watched A.I. for the second time.

I enjoyed it and it struck me that the last 20-25 minutes (from the time David falls from the building into the water) seems very dream like.

I am very bad at interpreting films so feel free to mock me, but it occurred to me that maybe it is David dreaming and has therefore achieved his own consciousness.

The "dream" ends with him dying, the A.I. who discover him bear a remarkable resemblance the the logo of the company that built David and the events in the "dream" are fairytale like.

I apologise if you have been through this all before but tell me what you think

I've only seen it once and Lex told me a few days ago that those guys at the end were AI and not evolved humans. That made me realise that I had missed something the first time round. Now you've come up with this theory, I really do need to sit down and watch it again - this time, more carefully to see what else I've missed.

I really love this film, and I think Steven Spielberg has made far worse films in his career; for example, Close Encounters of the Third Kind which I have never been able to sit through, no matter how many times I've tried and I really can't see what the appeal is with it! Personally, I think A.I. is one of his best.

If I didn't have such a backlog of "bought but not watched yet" movies, I'd watch it tonight

In the meantime, I'm very interested to see what other's views are on your theory

[mcmullanbrush]

Thanks for that Squirrel.

I also am not too keen on Close Encounters.

I do like Spielberg very much and Schindlers List was one of the greatest films ever in my opinion. I have loved everything he has done since then and I am looking forward to Minority Report

[Ian J]

Originally posted by Squirrel God
If I didn't have such a backlog of "bought but not watched yet" movies, I'd watch it tonight

That's because you're always on the forum

I watched it tonight, for the first time.

They were aliens or AI at the end. There was no absolute comment about it either way. I assumed they were AI for a couple of reasons

1 - They were able to transmit the memories to each other by touching (similar to the phone call being interfaced through David).

2 - Joe said that at the end all that would be left would be mecca.

3 - They had that sort of look to them.

The human race had died out and had not evolved.

I didn't think the end bit was a dream but just an effect of the filming. Spielberg does like playing with filters and cameras after all.

[Lex]

A.I. was a film I had been looking forward to for over a decade ever since I first heard Kubrick talking about it.
I was a little disappointed with the film when it finally arrived, I think mostly because I had been expecting so much more. But, that aside I think it is a good film, Spielberg is exceptional at child/parent/family relationships. I think his 'future world' vision however was a little bland. (By the looks of it he has made up for that with Minority Report.

I wondered whether the whole end sequence of A.I. was tagged on as an afterthought. It kind of had that feel about it.
I think the film would have been more satisfying if it had just finished with David underwater. I especially hated the voice-over, for me narration in a movie needs to be an integral part of its narrative, not just tagged on at the end.

They said on Newsnight Review last night that Spielberg makes films in pairs? Duel & Jaws, CE3K & E.T., Schindlers List & Amistad , and now A.I. & Minority Report. I can see their point, but that kind of misses out the other dozen or so he directed. What do you guys think?

Originally posted by Doubledoom
2 - Joe said that at the end all that would be left would be mecca.

Joe was clearly a Muslim then

Originally posted by Lex
A.I. was a film I had been looking forward to for over a decade ever since I first heard Kubrick talking about it.
I was a little disappointed with the film when it finally arrived, I think mostly because I had been expecting so much more.

I came to the film not knowing what to expect, but having heard that you either love it or hate it. As I had no expections as such, I think I was pleasantly surprised by it. I'm not a huge sci fi fan, so what I enjoyed more about the film was not the futuristic vision or the moral comment, but the relationships between the characters, as you have said Lex.

Originally posted by Lex
I wondered whether the whole end sequence of A.I. was tagged on as an afterthought. It kind of had that feel about it.
I think the film would have been more satisfying if it had just finished with David underwater.

The ending is always a sore point with AI. But for me, if it had been left with David underwater, I would've felt rather let down by the movie. I think those final bits are essential for the catharsis, for David to realise his original dream.

Originally posted by Lex
They said on Newsnight Review last night that Spielberg makes films in pairs? Duel & Jaws, CE3K & E.T., Schindlers List & Amistad , and now A.I. & Minority Report. I can see their point, but that kind of misses out the other dozen or so he directed. What do you guys think?

I don't know whether he does or he doesn't, but it looks to me like he gets the 'bug' for something and wants to indulge in that, perhaps exploring different sides of the same topic.

What I do notice from those pairings is that I have only liked ONE film in each pair. I liked Jaws, I hated Duel. I liked E.T., I hated CE3K. I liked Schindlers List, I hated Amistad. I liked AI, I wonder if I will hate Minority Report?

[super7]

AI was one of the first DVDs I bought (I'm pretty new to all this!), and I have to say I loved it. Film is in three distinct parts - David as part of the family, David outcast into the big bad world and David underwater.

The first time I watched it, the big bad world section really bugged me (seemed too big a change from the first section), but I watched it again about 6 weeks after with a friend's child, and thought it much better.

I really liked the commentary - it added a lot to the film, and thought the end sequence was excellent - David achieved his goal I think.

It's on my 'must watch again when I've watched the new stuff I still haven't watched' list

Super7

Lex,
I think A.I is one of the best films made in recent years. A lot of people I talked to suggested that the film ran a little too long. I think the reason for this feeling is that it could have ended at certain points towards the end but instead it ran on. When David finds the doctor for example, or when he is trapped underwater. Personaly, my favourite part of the movie 'IS' the last 20 minutes. I think it was very well thought out. I also loved the way the super artificial machines looked, thought and talked.

Why did the film run further?
Well, from the moment David was prompted to "love" he was looking for love from Monica. He would look for her love forever and would only be at peace when he found that love. Hence the end could only come when love was finally confirmed to him.

One explanation as to why many folks did not think much of the movie is that the film was probably too "Kubrick" for the Speilberg fans and too "Speilberg" for the "Kubrick" fans.
I thought Speilberg did a fantastic job that Kubrick would have been proud of.

Eric

McMillansbust,
How come David and Teddys power never ran out. Did they use special golden topped batteries or did the aliens recharge them?

[mcmullanbrush]

Originally posted by Chip
McMillansbust,
How come David and Teddys power never ran out. Did they use special golden topped batteries or did the aliens recharge them?

I assumed they had special batteries which could be easily inserted into the ....... special battery tube

Self-generating recyclable power?

Originally posted by Squirrel God
Self-generating recyclable power?

Why not. It is scifi after all

I think the first 20 mins or so of A.I. were very good-in fact upto the meeting with Jude Law..not bad..

BUT ..after that,it was down-hill.

I think the problem was that the story was meant to be played darker all the way through-with Kubrick at the helm I think he would have curbed Spielbergs saccharin tendancies.(..which spoilt the film).

In some places in the film it was downright silly-and totally lost the impetus of the darker scene that had been set initially.

I thought there was a subconscious(..or maybe it was conscious??) rip-off of the Wizard of Oz,and elements of Close Encounters.

So from a promising start A.I. became;-" The Wizard of Close Encounters".

..Real shame-because I had looked forward to this film for a long time...
Doug

AI bored the hell out of me!! It screamed of being made by someone with a lot of ideas, but not a clue how to effectively implement them and instead just chucking a bucket load of wonga at it.
I really hope minority report is better.

PS the best thing about AI is Teddy... you can actually buy them.

Originally posted by doug quaid
I thought there was a subconscious(..or maybe it was conscious??) rip-off of the Wizard of Oz

Dodgey quaid,
What planet are you from today?
A.I was nothing to do with Wizard of Oz, Judy Garland or anything else associated with the yellow brick road.

The story was quite simply, a Sci Fi parody of Pinnochio and possibly a bleak outlook at the future of mankind. I think the movie was brilliant and what was the baby of one of the greatest directors in the history of film was completed by another great filmaker who also happens to be one of the most successful directors that ever walked the planet.

Total Recall? Great film duggy

[gringottsdirect]

Originally posted by James45

PS the best thing about AI is Teddy... you can actually buy them.

Teddy settling down on David's bed watching him asleep at the end of the film, my jet black cat Danny does the same thing most nights, Spiely most have had one too.
I thought A.I. was really good, to a man the critics dissed it, when I saw it myself, I liked it, almost made me think about a few things for days afterwards but I'm not that cerebral.

Originally posted by Chip

I think the movie was brilliant and what was the baby of one of the greatest directors in the history of film was completed by another great filmaker who also happens to be one of the most successful directors that ever walked the planet.

if you are calling Kubrick one of the greatest directors of all time you are insane, he is surely the most over-rated director of all time.

people seem to heap on the respect with him when none of his films are what I'd call classics, forgetable and unfinished maybe... but not classics.

[mcmullanbrush]

If I could only ever watch the films of one director, it would without any hesitation be Stanley Kubrick

I'd would be driven insane about 20 minutes in to that particular mammouth screening

Clockwork orange = twaddle

2001 = the most impenetrable pile of twaddle ever

eyes wide shut = twaddle

Full metal jacket = the only Kubrick film I would watch again.

The shining = was that a rough cut cos it didn't look finished to me.

Spartacus = forgettable

Originally posted by James45
if you are calling Kubrick one of the greatest directors of all time you are insane, he is surely the most over-rated director of all time.

Jane,
Don't be daft man. Kubrick was without doubt a genius. Over-rated? Is that right. Lets have a look at some of his movies,

'2001: A Space Odysey' Lucas himself said. Without '2001' there would never have been a Star Wars. (Perhaps not a bad thing)
'A Clockwork Orange' A milestone shocker.
'The Shining' One of the best horror pics to date and still Jacks best role.
'Full Metal Jacket' Along with Saving Private Ryan, one of the best war movies ever caught on film. Fantastic.
'Spartacus' The be all and end all of sword and sandal epics.

And my personal favourite, 'Dr Stranglove, or how I learned to stop worrying and love the bomb' The Dark chocolate of black comedy. Pure, pure brilliance.

Due to you coming in at a miserable last place in the 'Guess the best Directors championship', I will recommend to Bob007 that your 'Guess the film championship' be revoked right away and you will be stripped of all medals as we speak. Also, don't forget to send your championship cup back to Barry Norman asap. What a disgrace

less of the Jane name calling you

I seriously have yet to enjoy watching a Kubrick film.

Kubrick had ideas and understood imagery very well (i imagine he would have made for a very talented painter or something like that) but his MOTION pictures fall flat on their faces as far as I am concerned, he didn't know how to join up all these images he created. For me, all of his films appear dis-jointed, almost as though some BBFC loony has had a go at them with a pair of scissors and in some instances incomplete.

2001 = absolute garbage

[mcmullanbrush]

I cant really comment on other peoples opinions on Kubrick. All I can tell you is that I loved his films before I even knew who he was.

I would watch a film and be completely mesmerised by it. After when I checked to see who had directed it I would find the name Stanley Kubrick

There are very few non Kubrick films that have ever drawn me in the same way.

There are no other films that I can watch as often as I watch Kubricks.

Originally posted by James45
twaddle
the most impenetrable pile of twaddle ever
twaddle
The shining = was that a rough cut cos it didn't look finished to me.
Spartacus = forgettable

Janet4+5
I see you've used your double post for good advantage by trying to pre-empt my post that appeared after yours. Memorable, intelligent and constructive criticism by the way. Now I know you're 13 years old.

Jamie13,
Just planting this to pre-empt what you say in your next post

Originally posted by mcmullanbrush
I cant really comment on other peoples opinions on Kubrick. All I can tell you is that I loved his films before I even knew who he was.
I would watch a film and be completely mesmerised by it. After when I checked to see who had directed it I would find the name Stanley Kubrick
There are very few non Kubrick films that have ever drawn me in the same way.
There are no other films that I can watch as often as I watch Kubricks.

Very well said.

Originally posted by john87
2001 = absolute garbage

Jimmy78,
If you really are avforums youngest member then you're not old enough to vote. Get it

I just get sick of people over analysing things so if one word will do I will use one rather than 50, a bit like newspeak from 1984.

Kubrick's films were all about individual scenes, there was no rhythm, no flow and no sense of timing.

I have absolutely no problem with people liking him but I do have a bit of a problem understanding why so many like him.

And I never used 45 after my name to signify my age, I am in fact 24. The history of the 45 is a long and boring story.

Chipper33.5

just because you see dumb people doesn't mean you should act like one.