What does the bizzarre, yet beautiful to watch ending, really mean? And surely it's (the very cool) Teddy you feel sorry for, not David.
I like the film, and there is some very stunning CGI in it, but don't understand the last 20 minutes or so.
2006-12-07 18:13:06 · 16 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Movies
One of the most frustrating movies I know. Planned and conceived by Stanley Kubrick, but finished by Steven Spielberg, it kept introducing themes and ideas (as any Kubrick film does) but then not going anywhere with them once they'd been introduced (because Spielberg didn't know how to create a Kubrick film -- he only knows how to make a Spielberg film). It was a very good movie, but it still disappointed me, because it showed signs and flashes that it could have been great -- brilliant -- instead of just being Very Good. Even more frustrating than watching a movie that knew it was terrible to begin with.
Had Kubrick lived to finish A.I., it probably would have had a mixed ending, one that's puzzling, that ties together all the themes and ideas introduced (as the scene where he meets the other robot boys almost did) but isn't necessarily happy, just thought provoking (most of his movies ended that way -- frustratingly indeterminate, but kept you thinking about them for days afterwards). Instead, Spielberg wanted to give the robot boy (forget his name) what he wanted, because that's what Spielberg does in his movies, so that people can go home satisfied and stop thinking about it.
It shows how far Spielberg had to wander from Kubrick's vision of the film, in order to give it a moderately happy ending, that he had to flash-forward two-thousand whole years into the future, just to find that kid a happy ending.
I think the (beautiful) ending didn't fit the rest of the movie, and that's why it's so puzzling. Because it doesn't belong.
2006-12-07 20:59:53 · answer #1 · answered by roboseyo 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
All through the movie he wanted to be a real boy. A normal boy, so his mother would 'love' him. The way it ended was as close as he could get to achieving this. If you'll notice the movie is done is 3 acts and is basically 'Pinnocchio' sci-fi version. First act, he has a family but discovers he's 'not real' and can't stay. 2nd act, he meets the 'wolf' (Jude Law) who teaches him the 'ways of the world'. 3rd Act, he tries to become a real boy. It should've been called 'Pinnocchio 2000' but was a very interesting movie.
2006-12-07 20:42:30 · answer #2 · answered by Army Of Machines (Wi-Semper-Fi)! 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I've seen it and it was one of the worst films I've ever seen. Soooo boring. My friends and I went to leave the cinema at one point, thinking that the film was about to end, only for it to have another half hour to go!
2006-12-07 21:12:53 · answer #3 · answered by titchandco 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No idea, I had the same problem with Donnie Darko & Mulholland Drive, not to mention A Tale of Two Sisters.
2006-12-07 18:54:08 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with David Cross Fan. That movie was really long but made me tear up a little in the end.
2006-12-07 19:06:35 · answer #5 · answered by ? 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
people have a recent noted as determination. no remember how greater AI will become, people will continually have an intuition to tell them top from incorrect. Robots programming will tell them the main rational thank you to get to their purpose. place a ball in the back of a small fence. the point is to get to the ball. A robotic could flow at as quickly as in the process the fence till it gets to the ball. A human could seek for a gate, or possibly hop over the fence, flow around the fence, dig below the fence, or merely ask a individual to hand them the ball. and that i like your analogy to a gun, yet save this in ideas: a gun can fire with out killing. whether the gun replaced into to flow off, it may require ammo loaded interior the gun. weapons could sit down for hundreds of years with out somebody to drag the set off. it is likewise possible to verify "Ripley's have faith it or no longer" yet a guy accrued over a hundred and eighty weapons with out ever firing one. as long as solid people proceed to be, attempt to no longer lose desire.
2016-12-30 03:18:44 · answer #6 · answered by goldie 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I found it to be quite disturbing really - the thought that he wuold be underwater just staring at the Blue Fairy for 2000 years was really creepy. The ending was really sad - although he got to spend time with his mother, he knew that he was letting her go. I can't decide if I like it or not, it worried me!
2006-12-07 18:29:42 · answer #7 · answered by Funky Little Spacegirl 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I think the film portrayed the misery of endless time and that we as humans are mortal but and that life goes on beyond us
2006-12-08 07:43:24 · answer #8 · answered by Mickey Corleone 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It wasn't really my type of film, but I must admit it was quite moving. I think it was David showing how much he loved his mother and wanted to be with her forever.
I would not watch it again though.
2006-12-07 18:43:48 · answer #9 · answered by London Girl 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
*spoilers* I beleive the last 20 min. showed the robot's devotion to his mother, and how much he loved her. And by the end he would even turn himself off so he can be eternally happy with her.
2006-12-07 18:19:02 · answer #10 · answered by David Cross fan 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋