Rating: 
Summary: Spielberg + Kubrick = Not your regular kind of entertainment
Review: A.I. is one of those experiences that knocks off balance. Depending on how one falls will be the feeling for this piece of art. In my party emotions ranged from non-stop tears to hysterical laughter, major confusion, and a whole bucket of others. Spielberg is a great director; there is no need to praise Kubrick -- his fame is well deserved. However, when the former implements the vision of the latter -- strange things happen -- their ways are so, almost bipolarly, different. As if it was not enough, the topics to explore do not allow for easy multiple-selection choice of experience (like it, hate it, good, bad) so widely present in the modern culture. The nature of life, social acceptance, religion, technology, reality, above all love. Some thoughts are so provokingly hard that the pain is physical. The mother abandoning the "meca-child" because she has long forgotten how to love (no wonder her "real" child is so cold and mean), the brutality of "human beings" towards each other, the world they came from (the community of Earth - its future is so convincingly real), and their own "children" turned slaves and tortured entertainment for beer and cocaine-intoxicated masses. There remains one hope among "human beings" -- the creator of meca-race, but soon we find out that he is just a frustrated father whose quest to return the loved one [son died of unknown cause] culminated in inventing "packaged love." No hope for the human race, as said one alien, the robot boy is the only true representation of humanity. As for the actor, who played him, I am seriously concerned with the mental health of the poor boy. This role (brilliantly played) coupled with the one in "Sixth sense" is just too much. Jude Law delivered interesting performance, but his character was strange and just out of place. I found there were many parts of the movie like that: David smashing "another" David into pieces, the scene by the which had a Freudian scent to it. However, in the midst of this confusion stands out one true and real character, a Buddha of a 'supertoy' -- THE TEDDY BEAR - whom I loved very much. In the view of the subject, the Academy should award him the Oscar. This would be a minor award for what he did on the screen. Well, stop reading the reviews and go see it. Just accept the thing "as is" and it will be worth it, whatever the outcome. Flawed but still precious. And TEDDY BEAR is the best.
Rating: 
Summary: I LOVE THIS MOVIE!!!!
Review: A. I. is absolutely amazing. Haley Joel Osment is a great actor, Jude Law was pretty good as well. I WANT TEDDY!
Rating: 
Summary: [A]bsolute [I]nane is what A.I. really stands for...
Review: This is without doubt a BEAUTIFULLY CREATED and directed STUPID movie. The last half hour of the aliens should have been cut out and saved for the video release. I nominate the editor for an emmy (for patience).
Rating:
Summary: A leap forward for both Spielberg and cinema
Review: I would need another viewing in order to discuss fully its themes and provocations; the one time I saw it, I watched it fairly amazed, awashed by its futuristic sensuousness, agape at Spielberg's distanced aesthetic (channelling Kubrick). It is in some respects an extension and a repudiation of all Spielberg's done before, and shows a refreshing willinglness to challenge his audience instead of manipulate or coddle them. One thing's for sure: Spielberg has regained some of the visionary prowess he had shown in "Close Encounters of the Third Kind"; apt comparisons will be made to "Things To Come" and "2001: A Space Odyssey." I urge all of you (as if you needed urging) to see this masterpiece on the big screen.
Rating:
Summary: Great themes.. a bit long in parts
Review: The movie is very well acted and the effects are spectacular. What really is great about this movie is the several intertwining themes in it. There's the issue of what is love, who/what can love, what role technology has/will have in society, the legal/moral obligations to technology, the legal/moral obligations that technology brings to society, the impact of humans on the environment, and so on. It's definitely not a movie for kids or for those hoping to have a jolly good time with people blown off, big explosions, bare breasts, etc.. (your usual summer fare). It's the thinker's movie. This movie will make you think. If you notice the actors who portray the "mechas" (robots), they never blink. Towards the end, the movie seemed to drag on a little bit. You felt it was coming to a close, but there would be something else... then again, coming to a close, but alas, something else. Of the movies that are out this summer for the masses (I'm not talking about the art house movies; I'm talking about what's available at the local cineplex), this is probably the best one so far.
Rating:
Summary: Almost Indelible
Review: With Stanley Kubrick now gone, Steven Spielberg is the solitary living legend among directors in the last quarter century. Every other director out there is merely a variable number of deviations from the perfection of Steven Spielberg. For those who miss Kubrick's cynical, sometimes cold spin on the human condition, Spielberg has given society one last chance to marvel at a story that is more thinking than feeling. A.I. (Artificial Intelligence) is a pet project of Kubrick's, nearly twenty years in the tweaking process. Having consulted with Spielberg on the project gave him an inside track on Kubrick's intentions. It is with that vision that Spielberg saw the film to the completion process. In the future, as the result of global warming, the ice caps will melt flooding countless coastal cities, displacing millions and strapping the resources of countries around the world. The United States, with its edge in technology, seems to survive the horrific economic impact of such a catastrophe. In these conditions, couples must have a license to procreate. Filling out the society are highly advanced cyborgs, or "mechas". Robots, mechanical humans, whatever you want to call them. The most appealing feature regarding these "beings" is the fact that they require no resources. The lack of emotion is also an attractive element for some tasks. However, a scientist by the name of Professor Hobby (William Hurt) believes that he and his team can create a robot child that will be able to love once the assigned parents "imprint" a designated series of words into its system. He believes this loving robot child will be a wonderful substitute for childless parents with no hope of getting a license to have a flesh and blood child of their own. Immediately the morality question comes up. Is it right to create a child whose sole purpose is to love the parents? Professor Hobby responds, "Didn't God create Adam to love Him?" Be sure, a morality question will spring to mind in many a scene offered here. After twenty months, a prototype is ready and a suitable family selected. The prototype, David (Haley Joel Osment) seems so real it's hard to believe his innards are all wiring and microchips. Before long, mom Monica (Frances O'Connor) feels prepared to go through with the imprinting protocol, which is irreversible and will bond the boy to her forever. It is at this point where I asked the first question. Why didn't the father go through the imprinting protocol as well? Wouldn't the ideal situation be one where the boy loves both parents, not just one? As a matter of course, complications develop and Monica takes David on a return trip to Cybertronics where he was manufactured. Since the imprinting process is irreversible, any returned robots will be destroyed. Avoiding that end, David winds up in the "real world" with other robots fighting for his life in a world that despises "mechas". It is during the second act offered here that the dark, Kubrick-influenced theme of Robot versus Human is heavily explored. Once again, morality questions pop up during a sequence called the "Flesh Fair". Haven't we already explored the downside of machines that do human tasks? It puts hard-working people out of jobs. This is not a new concept, so the escalation of the intensity will not be hard to fathom here. David, along with a super toy teddy bear, befriends a "lover" model robot named Gigolo Joe (Jude Law). I should explain that the "love" implemented in David is not the same "love" offered by the black leather wearing Joe. It is Joe who helps David in his dogged pursuit of the Blue Fairy, the one and same Blue Fairy from the Pinocchio tale. David believes, as his "mother" had read to him, that if he finds the Blue Fairy, she can turn him into a real boy and then his "mother" will be able to love him. That's right where I'm going to stop without ruining a complex third act. A.I. is undoubtedly an ambitious, amazing film. The biggest ambition might be the collaboration of two very different directors. In the simplest of terms, Kubrick is for thinkers and Spielberg is for feelers. Kubrick challenged the brain. His films ask questions, and just when you think he's going to offer you the answers, you end up with a whole new set of questions. Kubrick had a very intensely stark and exacting perspective on our mental selves. A Kubrick film is one where a trip to the bathroom better be life or death. On the other hand, Spielberg takes the moviegoer on an emotional merry-go-round the likes of which you're not certain you'll ever recover. Spielberg explores themes where our hearts win out over our minds. Love over logic. Feel first, think later. Perhaps it is the divergence of these styles that make A.I. less seamless than it might have been. It's quite obvious that Spielberg made every effort to realize Kubrick's A.I. However, with a "feeler" directing a "thinkers" movie, it comes out a little forced at times. An amazing film, no doubt, but a slight case of "too many cooks" spoiling the soup.
Rating:
Summary: Compelling, Spellbinding, Gripping
Review: It is dark, hopefull, sad, happy... All human basic emotions are touched by this SciFi drama. I saw it a day ago and I am still thinking about what I saw and what it means and how does it describes the human condition. Haley, is an incredible actor, his potrayal of human emotion is outstanding. If you want to see a movie with brains go to see AI.
Rating: 
Summary: Worth viewing, but ...
Review: Let me preface my review by saying I am a huge Kubrick fan, but Spielberg tends to put me on the fence. And THAT'S the problem here. This movie suffers from an extreme identity crisis. It starts off almost resembling a Kubrick film. The landscapes, the acting, the concept setup - all close to "Kubrick-ian". It's almost cold and sterile enough to make it. By the end of the movie, though, it's a schmaltz-fest. It becomes Spielberg-squared. And as a result, the whole film feels disjointed. I won't give away the plot. I hate reviewers who do that. But, suffice it to say, this is a Pinnochio story, with all kinds of scientific ideas thrown in just to be left on the roadside. In the opening, someone raises the implications of creating a creature whose sole purpose is giving love. William Hurt, as the scientist laying out the concept asks :"Well, isn't that what God did when he created Adam ?" Kubrick would've spent the rest of the film exploring that idea. Spielberg ignores it entirely. Considering this is a film people would see purely on the basis of Kubrick's involvlemment, that was a bad idea. Adding to the disappointment, by the end, you start to realize how much of this is just taken from elsewhere. The blaring example is at the end when he recreates the Death Star attack shot from "Star Wars". I almost blurted out "Use the force, Luke" at the movie theatre. Now, having got all the bad stuff out of my system, I still think this is worth seeing. It's not completely without merit. The cinematography is spectacular. Jude Law turns in a very nice performance, as does Haley Joel Osment ( he was just creepy enough ). And kudos on the teddy bear supertoy. He's about the best character in the movie. See this. There's stuff to appreciate. But if, like me, you want to see what Kubrick left behind, be prepared to be annoyed.
Rating:
Summary: A Good Mix of Styles
Review: Here is why I think this movie works: It is because people are so polarized about the film. If you are a Spielberg fan you feel the movie is too dark and depressing. If you are a Kubrick fan you feel the movie is sweet and nice. It doesn't matter where my feelings lay, but it is because of this polarization that I feel the movie works. Osment is perfectly cast as the boy robot. I feel that his performance here is much stronger than the one he gave in The Sixth Sense. The Flesh Fair and Manhattan are two scenes where he truly shines. I feel that his performance begins once he is imprinted on his "mother." As for Jude Law, there was not nearly enough of him. My one complaint about the film is that (don't worry no spoilers) if they took the time to set up his story why don't they follow through and show us what becomes of him? Why couldn't David (Osment) have just met Joe (Law) at the Flesh Fair and have that be the first time we meet him as well? Why should you go see this movie? 1: If you are a fan of Spielberg. 2: If you are a fan of Kubrick. 3: If you are a fan of Osment. 4: If you are a fan of the magic of cinema. I feel that if a movie can make you feel strongly one way or another than that film works. The worst movies are the ones you leave saying, "that movie was okay." If you are saying "I loved that movie," or "I hated that movie," than that means it touched you on some level. And that is what the best movies do.
Rating:
Summary: A.I. and Dichotomy
Review: It's a really good thing that Spielberg and Kubrick only have this one (albeit post-mortem) shot at collaborating on a movie together. The result of their collaboration - and wildly, contrasting world-views - is a mixture of the bizzare and wonderful, the divine and profane, of hope and despair. Throughout the film, these images clash and war with each other taking the viewer along for the ride. The most amazing facet of the film is that the visions of both filmmakers is realized in the course of the story. One never dominates over the other as they share the screen time and continually keep the viewer off-balance. The result is an emotional experience and a bonding to the main character - David - accomplishing the impossible: feeling and empathy for an inanimate machine.
| 
