MovieChat Forums > A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001) Discussion > Just a horrible movie

Just a horrible movie

posted 6 years ago by fleischwolf (294)
16 replies | jump to latest

Ok, I know it's not very friendly to post this on a forum where there are obviously people who like this movie, but I really believe this is Spielbergs worst movie.

First, it looks atrocious! Kubrick obviously made some of the most stunningly looking movies of all time, but Spielberg also has an eye for good looking movies. How did he deliver such a washed out shiny hideously looking movie? I'm not saying Spielberg should have tried to emulate Kubrick, but to deliver something looking this shoddy is just inexcusable.

The acting is horrible. The way Osmont plays David just makes you want to strangle the thing. Add to that William Hurt who sleepwalk through his role and Davids parents being overly dramatic. The only one you care for is the Teddy bear.

The story is so unbelievable schmalzy. Just horrible! The way Spielberg whacks us over the head with his message is beyond believe. Yes, we get it, he wants to be a real boy. It was fun in Pinocchio.

[–] fleischwolf (294) 6 years ago

The ending. I was gobsmacked when this cheesefest doesn't end with David at the bottom of the ocean, but suddenly jumps to 10000 years later??? With ridiculously designed aliens who are bringing back his mum. But for some reason only for a day? What? So that they can reenact a washing agent commercial.

I know, Kubrick supposedly gave his blessings for Spielberg to do this and some ideas supposedly came from Kubrick, but anyone who has seen a single Kubrick movie cannot believe that he would have delivered something anywhere near as cheesy and shoddy as this film.

No offence to anyone who enjoyed it though, just m 2 cents.

[–] Volley (3366) 6 years ago

Actually it was 2000 years later, haha and the "aliens" were actually advanced AI, the future of artificial intelligence, designed and created by the last humans to survive, until they were apparently wiped out by this devastating new ice age.

They obviously didn't do a good job detailing that these were sentient advanced AI, because I do remember half the theater thought they were aliens back in 2001.

[–] Renovatio (2990) 6 years ago

Interesting, it's good to read someone else's perspective... I really like the film and consider it among Spielberg's best work...

Do you think that Kubrick cast a shadow on the film? i.e. that for some people simply knowing that Kubrick was involved gave it expectations that it simply couldn't meet?

For example how the movie looked... Kubrick is a photographer and it shows in his films with their compositions and lighting. Spielberg's movies rely more on camera movement, special effects and his cinematographer Janusz Kaminski, who nailed the look here. I really like how dystopian it looks and the atsmosphere throughout the movie... The haze that hangs on everything reminds us that something is not right with this world...

I didn't mind Osmont being annoying. I've always found him unrelatable but I think it works in this movie to be distant from the characters as it does cut through the sentimentality quite a bit and helps us focus on the larger themes rather than to treat David as our avatar. I doubt this is what they were going for but it worked for me.

Yes... It is a very cheesy movie. I'll give you that much 😉

[–] fleischwolf (294) 6 years ago

Thank you for your levelheaded and intelligent response, even though I've attacked a movie you like. :)

While of course I was gobsmacked that Kubrick was in any way connected to this atrocity (sorry ;) ), I don't think it makes any difference. Even for later day Spielberg, who did deliver some schmalzy stinkers this is just his worst, I my opinion.

I'm astounded that Kaminski, who is one of the best DPs ever did shoot this movie. Again, it looks to me like an oldtime cheesy commercial for a washing agent, especially at the end, when David is snuggling with his mother in bed.

I don't think it works at all in the movie that David is so grating and unlikeable and I don't think that is what Spielberg intended. Because the movie is so cheesy of course we're supposed to feel for him and his plight, yet you just want to destroy this abomination. If we're not interested in the plight of David all of his trials and tribulations just fall flat, because we don't care. We don't care for his horribly flat Pleasentville family either. As I said, the only character that has charm to it and you care for is Teddy.

[–] Renovatio (2990) 6 years ago

Haha.. No worries.. If we all liked the same film, there would be little point in these forums... 👍

[–] strntz (10779) 6 years ago

I think the visuals and effects are great. The story is unique which you have to give points for.

I was one of those who thought the futuristic beings were aliens visiting Earth. Supposedly, they are evolved Earth Mechas. Missed that.

I don't get the Clone For A Day bit either. Why would a fully functioning clone only live for a day. Why could they only make a clone once? There was enough DNA material in the hair sample to make millions of clones. The only answer would be that they only *wanted* to make one clone, but even that begs the question "why".

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

I don't get the Clone For A Day bit either. Why would a fully functioning clone only live for a day. Why could they only make a clone once? There was enough DNA material in the hair sample to make millions of clones. The only answer would be that they only *wanted* to make one clone, but even that begs the question "why".

Ask Kubrick, it was his idea to have this in the story, and Spielberg respected his wishes.

[–] strntz (10779) 6 years ago

Ask Kubrick

Stan won't take my calls. plus there's that small matter of the restraining order..

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

You know what I mean. Google is your friend.

[–] strntz (10779) 6 years ago

Google also has a restraining order against me....

[–] Frogarama (12942) 6 years ago

Kubrick does stuff like that, that makes people wonder why. Spielberg emulated him a little, that's for sure, but it still looks like a Spielberg flick.

[–] [deleted] 6 years ago

The story is so unbelievable schmalzy. Just horrible! The way Spielberg whacks us over the head with his message is beyond believe. Yes, we get it, he wants to be a real boy. It was fun in Pinocchio.

Do you mean the last act of the movie with the Supermechas and bringing David's human mother back to life? That was actually Kubrick's idea.

[–] kellycallie (728) 6 years ago

The movie is horrendous. I remember the outrage over it performing so poorly and costing so much to make (100 million) from the critics. One giant bomb.

[–] BourbonKing (5612) 6 years ago

I didn't like the movie the first time I saw it and after watching it again recently I still have the same disappointment. I also did some reading and watching of behind the scenes material and it turns out that Spielberg and Kubrick's "collaboration" was done over letter correspondence and phone calls. They didn't huddle together and collaborate as much as I was first led on to believe, so it stands to reason why this movie feels NOTHING like a project Kubrick had touched, let alone inspired.

Schmaltzy is also a very apt description of the entire movie and its premise. IMHO, if Kubrick took the same principal characters and story he would have shifted the plot lines having David flee his maudlin parents after encountering a fugitive Gigolo Joe and the bulk of the movie would be about their perilous adventures together as they encounter a sick world inhabited by deranged humans who live only to amuse themselves with robot torture shows and mecha sex city tourist traps.

He could have incorporated the ending a lot more effectively by alluding to an impending apocalypse that led up to it unlike Spielberg who just cut to the chase. I agree with you on the ending as well as it played into a false narrative that David wanted his mother back so badly when in Kubrick's world the advanced robotic "race" would have probably tinkered with him a bit and changed his profile to be a cynical and serviceable machine. THAT would have been the ultimate pay off as with most Sci-Fi tropes we see that technology isn't always created to make things "better". Unfortunately, Spielberg fell back into his old ways and delivered a happy ending that wasn't even bittersweet.

[–] bohemianroxie (2471) 5 years ago

A happy ending?
Like a band aid on an amputation..
A totally depressing film.

[–] kenburke (2279) 5 years ago

It wasn't horrible, it just kept moving from one major plot to another.