AI: Apple Inside
Okay, so being the Apple-dork I am, I’m probably the only one in the packed theater showing AI tonight who recognized that a futuristic-looking thing in a laboratory was in fact an Apple iSub..
As far as the movie itself goes… It was definitely interesting, like Kottke I found myself not sure if I liked it until the very end; and like him, I did. Most people in the theater, however, did not. I chalk it up to the fact that most Americans cannot read between the lines, even if those lines are drawn very large, with giant spaces between them, and the lines themselves say ‘Read between us.’
Reader interactions
14 Replies to “AI: Apple Inside”
Comments are closed.
i saw AI today too. i will attempt to respond in a way which will not spoil the movie for those who wish to see it.
very simply, i would have liked it 1,000 times more if it had ended with him underwater looking at the statue. ideally, that phrase is cryptic enough. i think it would have been more kubricks style to have an ending like that. and yes you are a dork.
Noticed the iSub, too. We are all Apple whores. But onto the film itself…
I personally liked it quite a bit and do not have the same reservations voiced by my similarly-named compatriot here on Alternate. It’s precisely that extra leap beyond the statue that took the film into Kubrick country (however briefly). Surely, the things that happened after that leap could have been handled in a less fairy tale way, but such is life.
No matter how you thought the pacing, the acting, or the cinematography were handled, you have to admit A.I. raised some very interesting questions. And you can’t really ask much more from a film than that.
You may want to read Brian Aldiss’ original story, Super Toys Last All Summer Long.
All I know is, Jude Law + Banana Republic Home = Yummy.
But I digress. My point was that the people in the theater had no clue that the movie ‘raised interesting questions.’ They just thought the… er.. ‘visitors’ at the end looked funny. I basically thought the crowd enjoyed it up until the statue.. then when Mr. Kingsley came back on was when the rest of the crowd, like scott, got lost and unhappy (It’s okay, scott, you can be like the rest of the world, it’s okay… ).
awwshit. now theres some smack talkin goin on. i concede that upon further review SU’s comment about the leap beyond the statue taking it into kubrick country is correct. i think if it had ended at the statue, it would have been more poetic, and more gilliam-like. i think it would have let the audience answer the “issues” raised by the movie for themselves, instead of having spielberg slam you over the head with it. make no mistake, i thought the cinematography and jude law made this movie kickass. but i still think the most interesting thing in that entire movie is teddy and his relationship with david. i thought teddy was some damn good cg, but i gained even more respect when i learned it was stan winston’s animatronic goodness. plus, good chris rock and robin williams cameos. basically, shutup, i liked it, but i thought it could have been far better. nyah.
Warning-Possible Spoilers!!
I agree with scott, no issues raised after the statue took me anyplace futher than I would have went myself. Very dissapointing that Speilberg feels the need to hold the audiences hand the whole way. I think that ending at the statue would be a more “Kubrickian” ending, like Dr. Strangelove or Full Metal Jacket- kind of abrupt. The discussions I have after an ambiguous movie with friends are usually more interesting than any tacked on ending.
Also, did anyone else think the end was just a little too similar to Kubrick’s 2001? But Kubrick handled it much better-no narrator to spell everything out, no subtitles (WTF?), no painfully forced psuedo-scientific explaination (I was almost embarrased for the DNA/ space-time explainantion, it just seemed like jibberish). I really got tired of the narration; just tell the story through the story. Sometimes it’s good not be sure what is going on, it can make a person pay attention to the details. Again, look at 2001- a half hour (or about?) of no dialogue, but transfixing none the less.
Sorry I went on so long. It just seems that a really good movie could have been a great one if there was a little more faith in the audience. Frustrating. I loved the rest of the movie and Jude Law’s character (whose exit seemed just to be a quick way to get him out of the story) could easily have an entire movie about him. I still would recommend it, I just won’t love it.
It is JUST a movie, ya know…
i saw AI today too. i will attempt to respond in a way which will not spoil the movie for those who wish to see it.very simply, i would have liked it 1,000 times more if it had ended with him underwater looking at the statue. ideally, that phrase is cryptic enough. i think it would have been more kubricks style to have an ending like that. and yes you are a dork.
Noticed the iSub, too. We are all Apple whores. But onto the film itself…
I personally liked it quite a bit and do not have the same reservations voiced by my similarly-named compatriot here on Alternate. It’s precisely that extra leap beyond the statue that took the film into Kubrick country (however briefly). Surely, the things that happened after that leap could have been handled in a less fairy tale way, but such is life.
No matter how you thought the pacing, the acting, or the cinematography were handled, you have to admit A.I. raised some very interesting questions. And you can’t really ask much more from a film than that.
You may want to read Brian Aldiss’ original story, Super Toys Last All Summer Long.
All I know is, Jude Law + Banana Republic Home = Yummy.
But I digress. My point was that the people in the theater had no clue that the movie ‘raised interesting questions.’ They just thought the… er.. ‘visitors’ at the end looked funny. I basically thought the crowd enjoyed it up until the statue.. then when Mr. Kingsley came back on was when the rest of the crowd, like scott, got lost and unhappy (It’s okay, scott, you can be like the rest of the world, it’s okay… ).
awwshit. now theres some smack talkin goin on. i concede that upon further review SU’s comment about the leap beyond the statue taking it into kubrick country is correct. i think if it had ended at the statue, it would have been more poetic, and more gilliam-like. i think it would have let the audience answer the “issues” raised by the movie for themselves, instead of having spielberg slam you over the head with it. make no mistake, i thought the cinematography and jude law made this movie kickass. but i still think the most interesting thing in that entire movie is teddy and his relationship with david. i thought teddy was some damn good cg, but i gained even more respect when i learned it was stan winston’s animatronic goodness. plus, good chris rock and robin williams cameos. basically, shutup, i liked it, but i thought it could have been far better. nyah.
Warning-Possible Spoilers!!
I agree with scott, no issues raised after the statue took me anyplace futher than I would have went myself. Very dissapointing that Speilberg feels the need to hold the audiences hand the whole way. I think that ending at the statue would be a more “Kubrickian” ending, like Dr. Strangelove or Full Metal Jacket- kind of abrupt. The discussions I have after an ambiguous movie with friends are usually more interesting than any tacked on ending.
Also, did anyone else think the end was just a little too similar to Kubrick’s 2001? But Kubrick handled it much better-no narrator to spell everything out, no subtitles (WTF?), no painfully forced psuedo-scientific explaination (I was almost embarrased for the DNA/ space-time explainantion, it just seemed like jibberish). I really got tired of the narration; just tell the story through the story. Sometimes it’s good not be sure what is going on, it can make a person pay attention to the details. Again, look at 2001- a half hour (or about?) of no dialogue, but transfixing none the less.
Sorry I went on so long. It just seems that a really good movie could have been a great one if there was a little more faith in the audience. Frustrating. I loved the rest of the movie and Jude Law’s character (whose exit seemed just to be a quick way to get him out of the story) could easily have an entire movie about him. I still would recommend it, I just won’t love it.
It is JUST a movie, ya know…