southernbelle

** Warning - spoilers

I really, really wanted to like AI - I'm a big Speilberg fan, and love that Haley kid - but uuurrggh! that was painful. It reminds me of those exercises that would have one person make up a part of the story, and pass it on, and gradually you ended with a miss-mash, and no clear direction where you were headed. The special effects were pretty good, but the holes in the plot big enough to drive a space shuttle through bugged the everlovin' he!! out of me. Um, hello, how did Martin the popsicle suddenly defrost? and who killed that gal Joe the Gigilo found? And why, for the love of god, were we supposed to believe they were just going to drive him into the woods, never to return? And was it really necessary to show the big bad boogey fair for any other reason than to bring a Roman gladiator feel to the movie.

Ugh. Double ugh.

Anyone else feel the same?

southernbelle

rookie error

Butch

Hmm . . . not sure if those were rhetorical questions or not, but in case they weren't, here is my take . . .

1. Martin was defrosted because they found a cure for his ailment.

2. The husband of that woman killed her. He felt scorned that she went to a mecha for the "husbandly services" she should have been getting from him.

3. As far as how we were supposed to believe David wouldn't return - I don't think that was an issue going through Monica's mind. She was supposed to take him to be destroyed. She had sudden pangs of guilt and couldn't bear to take him to be destroyed, so she let him go instead.

4. I don't think the Flesh Fair was supposed to bring a Roman Gladiator feeling to the movie - it was more to show how cruel humans can be towards things that they perceive as different. That's why they were moved by how much David ACTED like a little boy even if he wasn't one. He just seemed too similar to themselves, so they couldn't "enjoy" watching him be destroyed.

Oh well, that was just how I viewed things. I guess Spielberg did take a bit of artistic license in not explaining the deal with Martin and Gigolo Joe, but for the sake of time, I'm kind of glad he didn't explain. All in all, I did enjoy the movie, but it was without a doubt quite disturbing. However . . . I suppose all movies that Kubrick has some involvement with are disturbing.

__________________
I used to be into sadism, necrophilia and beastiality, but then I realized I was just beating a dead horse

Lysergic13

You know, I am an L.A. boy, and in my youth, some of my jobs would have a copy of Variety (Daily) in the break rooms.

A long time ago, there was a story about Spielberg trying to retain the rights to "Pinocchio" (spelling?). And it was a long article, about the dragged out affair, involving Disney, the others who claimed to be the original copyright holders, and some other peoples who were trying to "green light" a Pinocchio package. Speilberg was throwing around his weight, burning asses, and talking the talk.

Flash Forward>>>>>> A.I.

Hmmmmm. He Pinocchio's a Kubrick storyline?
I for one, do not believe it coincidences.
Why does the media have a faulty memory, and couldnt make the connection the way I did?

P.S..... Common Kubrick Theme: All the women who get abused, raped, killed, etc, are DROP DEAD GORGEOUS!!

zenbooty

What's wrong with the end of A Clockwork Orange?

__________________
Common sense is what tells you the Earth is flat.

Grimm

Nothing is wrong with it. Don't trust anyone who says there is something wrong with it.

hapoo

I'm a fan of both kubrick and speilburg but that movie was such a disapointmend
2001 was a great science fiction film! and the only plot hole was at the very end... which i dont even consider a plot hole because it was done on purpose.
AI was not scientific enough to be a kubrick film and not smooth enough (as the plot flows) to be a speilburg film IMHO. Their styles dont mix well.

[Edited by hapoo on 07-11-2001 at 09:55 PM]

__________________