Rating: 
Summary: Don't waste your time. What a disappointment!
Review: A bloated, disjointed, disconnected, slow, methodical mess. It's finally happened to Spielberg: I call it the "Barbra Streisand Syndrome:" The truly great ones eventually lose all touch with reality and become a caricature of themselves. Barbra doesn't sing anymore, not with the sweet purity of her early career: She plays herself, singing. Spielberg doesn't create spontaneous beauty anymore. He's so lost touch with anything real, he's caricaturing himself, throwing in director's tricks that worked in his earlier movies; and in this one, tacking on an ending so absurd and disconnected, you leave wondering what ... the man's on. Bottom line: A truly great, classic movie was Spielberg's Empire of the Sun, one of my all time favorites, a perfect film. The difference between that gem and this dog is much like the plot of A.I: Empire of the Sun is a real movie with real heart, this one is a mere "robot" of a movie: an arrogant conceit of its creator. Many people will mention the "darkness" that Kubrick added to Spielberg's so-called "sunniness." Bunk. Darkness for it's own sake is a waste of my time. If you must buy the hype, whatever you do, don't take kids under ten.
Rating:
Summary: Artificially Inept
Review: This movie goer was saddly disappointed by this peice of science fiction. Certainly preview trailers made this seem like a great movie and while the special effects were absolutely perfect, the story was less than satisfying. I expected something totally different than what I actually saw. If anything, this movie is a modern day Pinocio story with a sci-fi twist. The basics are this: Parents "adopt" a one of a kind robot child while thier own son is cryogenically frozen for medical reasons, but when a cure is found for their real son, let's just say things go down hill from there for the poor robo kid. The movie seemed to drag on forever and got a little far fetched at the end (are we really suppose to believe that robots have an infinite power supply?). That's all I'm really going to say about the movie because I don't want to spoil the whole thing for everyone else. I suggest that anyone interested in seeing this movie wait until its released on video and rent it, it be cheaper that way and if you end up disappointed like me, you won't have wasted as much money to see it. Aside from the special effects, A.I. is not a movie worth going to a theator for.
Rating: 
Summary: Prepare for eternal boredom
Review: A.I. has to be the worst recent movie I have seen in the theatres. The opening and introduction of the movie alone almost put me to sleep. The movie really keeps you guessing - guessing how much longer it is going to be. With every contrived anecdote about the human condition and the search for love and happiness Spielberg drags the viewer more into a tangled web of mediocrity and a storyline that keeps repeating itself scene after scene. Spielberg's runaway ego creates more false endings and new beginnings than I would ever have thought possible in one movie. Osment, who has 85% of the screen time speaks in his almost whisper-like "I see dead people" voice, which was sometimes silenced by the collected sighs and yawns of the frustrated and bored audience. I wanted to walk out, but my girlfriend wouldn't let me - she liked the cute little Teddy Ruxpin "superpet".
Rating:
Summary: A good movie is in there somewhere
Review: A mishmash of a movie. Way too many loose, contrived, and very "reaching" stroypoints were all attempting to tie together near the end... didn't work. The audience I was with (Mann Chinese) flat out rejected the film. Laughs, giggles, awwww, and other banter filled the room as we were subjected to the what can only be decribed as the worst student film ever. The first 45 minutes or so is good, the first hour and 45 minutes is ok. The last bit was just way too wacky. I can understand the meaning of the ending, it's just the torture the audience had to endure to get to it could have been eliminated. The movie tries to be a three part series all in one movie... too long, yet not long enough to work. The audience really couldn't take it.... note: very very bad audience reaction. I was in disbelief, I couldn't believe the film had actually taken this turn. It was like Spielberg died halfway through filming and a stoner film student took over.... honest :)
Rating: 
Summary: terrific, spoiled by a spielberg ending
Review: The first two (of three) acts of this film weave spielberg character intimacy with kubrick atmosphere and settings. The result is fantastic, wherein a warm (but not yet overbearing) tale of adopting parents adjusting to their artificial boy yields to a nightmarish world of andriod exploitation and slaughter as the boy is cast out of his adopted role into the "real world." The second act especially, wherein we meet jude law's charismatic yet appropriately limited artificial personality effectively recalls both the environment and the strongest theme (the definition of sentience or empathic sentience) of blade runner. I was impressed with the intensity and ferocity of the andriod mistreatment at the hands of the "flesh fair;" I had not expected such a visceral treatment from spielberg. And with osment's superb performance we continually question whether the lead character truly demands our sympathy, as his tendency to fall into dialogue loops in critical situations reminds the audience of his manufactured origin. My only gripe is with the third act, which sells out both the believability and the recurring theme of survival of only the machines in the coming climate apocalypse. WARNING--SPOILER: Osment should have been left unfound, or found by _machine explorers_, not flesh (or "energy") beings with a subserviant infatuation with the species responsible for devastating the earth's surface and obliterating itself. Further, the most plausible means for establishing direct (1-way) communication with a civilization somewhere else in the universe would be through machine explorers that did not require sustainable biomass for the required millions of years for interstellar travel.--again one of spielberg's underlying themes was the survivability of the android form!! A second (less substantive) gripe is the choice of Ministry as the flesh fair musical performers. My personal preferrence would have placed Ogre and cEvin's (skinny puppy) Doomsday performance upon the stage instead...
Rating:
Summary: Theres alot going on here
Review: As most movie goers already know A.I. is basically a strange collaberation between Steven Spielburg and the late Stanley Kuberick. This seems to be Spielburgs attempt at creating a "2001" homage to the late Kuberick. After seeing it I am deluged at what ive seen. Ill say what will probably be said alot about A.I. That I simply dont know how to feel about it. Sure it was cinematlly amazing and the acting was top-notched but the overwhelming feeling it leaves is somewhat hard to take. You can deffenitly see the 2 directors stlyes which is both an asset and a weakness. Can Kubericks stark reality be held up against Spielburgs brash opptimism? The answer is no. And yes. Like most modern marriages (forgive the anology) the 2 directors bot clash horribly and compliment each other very well. Most movie goers will complain about the ending, Which is somewhat reminisant of Kubericks 2001...20 minutes of virtaully no dialouge and a somewhat an ambigious ending. The advertisments do not completely capture what the film is about so preconcived notions will be shattered and viewers will probably be angry and resentful towards the movie, which is a shame because theres alot here to look at and read into...albiet some of the execution is off. But all in all its worth. Another negative note is that this is simply not a summer movie. I know Im stereotyping here but most movies that come out during this period are somewhat mindless brain candy. With that being said most will come in with different expectations. When dessert is being served we are given the main course dressed up like dessert (again another anology, forgive me) Some will be let down. Others will be pleasently surprised while others are left shaking there head wondering if they liked it or not. Will this stand up to the test of time like "2001" and Spielburgs other classics? I sincerly hopt it does, left for us to savor and appreciate it as the main course it is.
Rating:
Summary: Forget it
Review: Well I went to see this without watching the trailers. I thought it would be awesome and it was opening night. Well for us it was not good. It started off slow and never picked up the pace. After the show we discussed that we did not like the movie, would not recommend it, and wondered why we did not just leave after about an hour... Opinion of two males 18 and 40+. We did like Tomb Raider...
Rating:
Summary: Great, but...
Review: This is a spoil-free review. First I'll start by saying that this is a really good movie. It's a well told story, compellingly acted, and beautifully shot. But after it passed the 2 hour mark, it started to lose steam. This feels more like a Kubrick work than Spielberg. It's decidedly not warm and fuzzy and it paints a view of the future that is at once captivating and frightening. It's refreshingly free of cliched "futuristic" gizmos and clean-room like dwellings. However, that doesn't mean there aren't eye-popping visual treats. The key is that in A.I., the future feels very 'lived-in' - and that's a nice change from your average sci-fi film. Most of the acting is superb. Haley Joel Osment is incredible, it's the kind of performance that is so convincing, that you don't even think about him as an actor playing a role...he really IS the character. I had some problems with personalities in the movie making decisions, and having reactions, that seemed out of character. Some choices that didn't ring true for me. But they were never enough to detract seriously from the experience. Jude Law is also fantastic, and a very good complement to Osment's character. The story is good, parts are dead predictable, but enough is surprising that you don't find yourself waiting for it to unfold. It takes you through some wildly different experiences and scenarios, but the characters are solid and it usually works well. However, the main reason I didn't rate this as a '5' is because of the end. There's a moment right around 2 hours into this film, where it feels as if it's ending. It's not a particularly happy 'ending', and it would leave certain issues unresolved. For me, however, it felt appropriate...and I would have left the theater deep in thought about the events in the film and about the amazing journey that the main character goes through. It wouldn't have come to a perfect resolution, but very few things in life do...which allows everyone to take their own 'message' from the experience. Alas, it wasn't to be, as the movie took what I consider to be a drastic turn. My complaint about the end isn't about how drastic the turn is, but the fact that it presents a number of huge contrivances that feel very forced. It's like the writers desperately wanted a perfect ending so they invented dozens of plot devices, some of which contradict each other, to help them achieve their goal. During this part of the film, there were audible snickers in the audience (I wasn't one of them) as the real end unfolded...which is unfortunate because until then, it was a very quiet and involved audience, very much into the story. Yes, the end holds some big surprises, and some stunning visual treats, and I enjoyed them. But those moments quite frankly weren't enough to overcome the sheer disappointment I felt that this wonderful story was being brought to a close in such a clumsy manner. DO go see this movie, you will enjoy it. And if you're like me, you'll find enough greatness in the first 2 hours to forgive the out-of-place ending
Rating: 
Summary: Dr. Strangechoice or How I Learned to Ruin a Good Movie
Review: You really should go see A.I., and then leave when it ACTUALLY ends. This won't be when the credits roll, but about a half an hour earlier. The first two hours of A.I. are not perfect, but they are extraordinary, and truly captivating. As I watched the abandoned robot boy's quest to find the blue fairy, I thought this could be one of Spielberg's best. It's still entertainment for the masses, but of the highest caliber. These two hours are wrapped up in a poetic, beautiful climactic scene under the ocean. It may not be the most accessible ending, but it really felt right. With an ending like this, I was a bit baffled that this movie got some negative reviews, but then I heard the narrator(which it didn't really need)say "2000 years later." At this point the theater should have invested in red warning lights, because Steven Spielberg nearly sabotages 2 hours of wonder with a half an hour of fluff dressed like a Kubrick ending. This "new" ending tries to pay homage to the ending of 2001, while simultaneously doing everything 2001 knew not to do. Have you ever wondered what 2001's ending would be like with a narrator to explain everything to you? GO SEE A.I. Do you want to be shown the mysterious life forces (perhaps in obvious CG) that were purposely never shown in 2001? GO SEE A.I. Would you just love to see an enigmatic, silent ending re-edited so that it is completely obvious and very chatty? GUESS WHAT? GO SEE A.I. [...] You really should go see the first two hours of A.I. and leave before it self-destructs. I promise you that you will miss nothing, and will leave believing you just saw a fantastic movie. You are not going to listen to me though. You'll have to watch it all, and then be mad that the movie you liked turned on you. It's not your fault though. I've told you the milk has gone sour, and you've just gotta take a whiff..... just don't say I didn't warn you.
Rating: 
Summary: That's why they shine for you
Review: Their are two names your gonna read in the opening line of every review. Steven Speilberg and Stanely Kubrick. Then the review will continue to remind us what geniuses both these men are. The problem is we already know that. Speilberg is to film what Babe Ruth was to baseball and Kubrick what Nietzche was to philosophy. So let's by pass that. This film follows the journey of a synthetic boy named David (Haley Joel Osment) who is the first machine programed to love. His love is without human frailties. It's constant and unconditional, it's also irreversiable. This becomes problematic for the couple that takes David in their home, as after a short period David's prescene becomes too much for the couple to handle. He's abandoned. This is the only spoiler I'll reveal because it's the only one I had revealed to me before I saw the film. The film then becomes a bleak parrallel to Pinnochio as David begins his journey to find his creator (for some of us God, for David, William Hurt). He runs into a gigilo-bot (played by Jude Law) and designates him his journey's caretaker. What will in all likely hood probably keep this film from being as successful as many of Speilberg's other films, is overwhelming feel of a Stanely Kubrick feature this film has. Kubrick never liked to hand his movie goers anything, and in that vein this film does him proud. This film has philosphies and questions you have to dig for, and grapple with. The film has a bizarre twist at the end, but the twist only serves to drive the point of the film home. But more then likely it will alienate moviegoers who have gotten used to the straightforward and bland nature of films like Tomb Raider and The Mummy Returns. AI is not mindless entertainment. It is not a self contained film either it will draw you in for better or for worse, and perhaps have you leave the theatre confused and enraged about the money you just spent. If you want to see brillant performances in a complex yet throughly rewarding film see AI. If you just want to waste two hours of your life at the movies, there are plenty of other films to choose from.
|
