Rating: 
Summary: One of the best films ever
Review: First off let me just say that many people who are bashing this film are mainly bashing it and calling it a steven spielberg film...and that's where they are wrong! Sure some changes were made after the great Stanley Kubrick passed away but this still has the feel of a classic Kubrick film. The people who have seen Eyes Wide Shut (which is a very beautiful and haunting film) bashed it mainly because they didn't have a good knowledge of Kubrick and the way he worked. Tom Cruise and Nicole Kidman drew people to the theater but it wasn't the stuff they expected from them and that's how it should've been and was. With A.I. Kubrick let Spielberg into his vision and a project that he held so near and dear to his heart and had been working on since the mid 80's. When Kubrick passed away Spielberg was given the chance to helm A.I. and create Kubrick's vision. Kubrick originally wanted Steven to direct the film and he'd produce but Steven was thinking the opposite but with Stanley's death he really had no choice. A.I. is a beautiful and mezmerizing collaboration between two of the greatest directors ever and comes out so well. To some Kubrick's films may be a total bore because of their length and how Stanley really got into telling a story in full detail and never cut any corners but Kubirck was never the type of guy Spielberg is that has the mainstream appeal and his films were often cult hits and not the big blockbusters like Spielbergs (which is another reason many people are bashing this film but to me it's his greatest work since E.T., his best film and one of the best of all time). A.I. is a fairytale and nothing more than that and that's what I rook from the film. Haley plays a robot who is very much like any other human being and that's all he wants to be treated like. He's looking for love just like everyone else but because he's not a real boy he's not treated the same way. All he wants is for his mother's love but doesn't understand why he can't have it and he realises if he find the blue fairy he will be able to become a real boy and his mothers love he will have. The ending is such a beautiful ending and I really don't see some people's problems with it. -SPOLIERS- David makes every possible attempt to show his mother than he is just like everyone else and wants to be a real boy and does so no matter how long it takes. 2,000 years pass and David still wants to prove that his love and already has shown that he is just as real as everyone else. David finds out that his mother has died along time ago but has a chance to bring her back for just one day and it proves how real he is and how much emotion he has when he accpets it just to hear his mother say she loves him and to show his mother how much he loves her.-END SPOILER- It's a very hearwarming and emotional ending and even though it's not what we'd expect from Kubrick in the end Spielberg throws his visions into the final half hour of the film and put his stamp on A.I.! Kubrick had so much faith in Spielberg and was Kubrick's choice and it's sad that people bash Spielberg for his visions and wanting to make Kubrick's dream film a reality! For those that have yet to see this or were turned away by bad reviews (I had huge expectations for the film and when it came out the bad reviews piled up and turned me off of it until now)please don't listen to all the negative stuff and view this movie and make your own opinions on it. Kubrick's stuff is either understood or misunderstood and with Spielberg in the mix it made it alot different to review a film like this! What an amazing and beautiful film A.I. is!
Rating: 
Summary: Thought Provoking
Review: If you are a fan of Spielbergs usual action packed fair you might find this movie too slow or too weird. I enjoyed this movie and found it thought provoking.The movie is about a robot child substitute built with artificial intelligence that enables it to love and be loved by its human owners. The robot it turns out has an ego and believes itself to be unique and like no other. The robot subsequently becomes emotionaly needy and neurotic. They created something that has the flaws that cause human pain and suffering. With no programmed belief system, the robot developes its own after hearing the story of Pinnochio. It pursues the blue fairy, which it believes will make him into a real boy and thus worthy of his mothers love. At this point in the movie, I realize that the robot is seriously flawed. Which is what I found so thought provoking. They created a robot to fulfill a human's need for a childs love but in so doing created a robot that feels the same pain it was supposed to relieve.
Rating: 
Summary: By far the worst movie we've seen in a year!
Review: I bought this movie and watched it with four kids. It
was so miserably incoherent, longwinded and boring
that I felt obligated to apologize to them afterwards.
We give the movie 10 thumbs down! I wish I'd read
the reviews here first, and not been blinded by the
sale price of the DVD. I can only imagine that those
giving it a positive review must somehow be making
money off the movie.
Rating:
Summary: An uncomfortable near-masterpiece...
Review: This is a movie that everybody loves to hate. But I love it, for many of the reasons that others hate it. People expecting your standard E.T. Spielberg movie are creeped out by some of the uncomfortable scenes: the flesh fair, the rivalry between Martin and David, the alternate creepy/cuddliness of David himself. But most of the criticism comes from the Kubrickians upset with the corny Spielberg touches, particularly the ending. They would be happier with a pure, dark vision of the future that would have left David at the bottom of the ocean. The conflict between the Spielberg/Kubrick visions and between the contrasting emotions that audiences feel however I believe is integral to the duality that David represents. David is both Pinocchio and real. He has emotions, and yet he is a pile of circuits. Do your eyes tear up when he is abandoned, do you feel compassion? Or are you repelled by David's creepy unnaturalism, the way the owner of the flesh fair is?
Once created, does a robot that can love deserve respect, compassion, love in return, rights?
That is the central question that the movie is asking, and there are no easy answers.
Your reactions say as much about you as about the movie.
Some, like myself, will feel torn between the two emotions and come away with an uncomfortable feeling that ultimately is deeply satisfying.
If you go to the movies to make you think, there is no better movie made last year. This is a movie that will have you debating with your friends for hours over the meaning of existence, moviemaking techniques and the morality of advanced robotics.
If you go to the movies to have all of the answers tied up in one, neat, tidy package, this movie will drive you nuts. Regardless of how you feel about the story, the acting and the production values in this movie are first-rate. Haley Joel Osment is absolutely convincing as an android Pinocchio who is striving to be a real boy. He's downright creepy in moments just how fake he seems, and yet at others he is as real as any boy, playing to the heart of the Pinocchio/real duality that David represents (and the universal need to feel "special" and "unique" -- note that David loses hope momentarily when he sees dozens of other "Davids" shrinkwrapped for sale in one of the movie's most powerful scenes.) The supporting cast, ranging from the everpresent "Teddy" -- The Jiminy Cricket character -- to William Hurt as the myopic robot designer, to Martin as the jealous brother, are dead-on convincing. And Jude Law as Gigolo Joe almost steals the show as the lover model with a romantic streak. This is one movie that will hold up and be talked about long after most of the detritus of 2001 (The Mummy Returns, etc.) will be put to the dust heap of history. If you want a good movie where good and evil are easy to follow and understand, go watch Lord of the Rings.
If you want a movie where the lines are blurred, where you never quite know which side you are supposed to be on, watch A.I.
Rating:
Summary: People who did not like this movie....
Review: do not have souls!!!! This movie is like nothing I have seen before. It is an absolutely amazing film, and (despite what many people say) the last scene is probably the single most beautiful and heart-wrenching piece of cinema that I have experienced in a very long time. See this movie with somebody that you really care about....like your mom.
Rating:
Summary: A.I. and Our Fondest Dreams
Review: Roger Ebert's review of A.I. can be of help in
reflections on what the film, which looks and
sounds magnificent on DVD, is about. I feel he
misunderstood some of its main points. The story
by Brian Aldiss, on which the film is based, Ebert
writes, is about a machine pet abandoned in the
woods. What woods? There are no woods. There is
no pet to be abandoned in them. Where did he
come up with this? In his review of the film:
Comparing deserting David to the junking of a
computer is pretty cold, almost robotic. True, if the
android had not been in a form we could identify
with, perhaps, it would have been harder to care.
However, this thing of emotions and awareness,
sentience, being the sole property of humans is
jingoistic in the extreme. It's like saying there can
be no life forms in all of Outer Space unless they
are carbon based like us. Why? Who gave this
divine right to humans alone? Throw a beloved toy
away and it is us who hurt, not the toy, Ebert says. But this android is no toy. For him to write that the film should have followed
the "adopting parents" instead of the android boy
makes little sense. Follow them doing what? What
would be the point? He contradicts himself later in
his review by saying the most interesting part of the
film is when the android is abandoned. If Ebert had
had his way, that most interesting part of the film
would not have been there. Somehow this is linked
to his odd statement that Gepetto was THE poignant character in "Pinocchio." Aldiss's story is a neat one on how robotic humans
have become and will in the future become more
so. With a terrific last line. The story carries out its
objective with sly sardonic wit in precise, almost
staccato cadence that is sad and lonely feeling. The
movie expands it greatly. Ebert complains the film
did not trod the line between machine and "reality"
but of course it did with every single scene David
was in. I never forgot for a moment this was an
android who had become more than what he was
manufactured to be. Ebert is right about Haley Joel Osment's
performance--it is a very subtle one that is
luminous. When he laughs at the dinner table, while
still becoming "one of us," with such mania, it's
chilling. When everyone else joins in laughing, he
stops, and looks at them curiously. When he eats
spinach and his face distorts, it's spooky and sets an
edgy tone that persists throughout the film that says
this is neither human nor machine, but more. That
he does not sleep, that he does not eat, does not
negate value and worth in new and unique ways. Pinocchio became real when his wooden body
turned into flesh and bones. David is not given this
luxury. Osment portrays such a difficult role that is
interesting, constantly thoughtful, profound and he
handles it remarkably. The film reminds me of the
observation, "true horror is hearing a rose sing." If
it can sing, it can be aware, and if it can be aware, it
can feel. Pluck it, it may scream in pain. But only to
itself. Does that make the pain less? David feels
pain, physical as well as emotional. Certainly at
being abandoned. Certainly with being hurt by the
boys at the swimming pool. To denigrate that is to
miss the whole point of the mix of science and
mysticism. Ebert criticizes the film for not delving into
something totally non human, but there is only so
far the human mind can go in imagining what it is
to be totally alien from us. No one will ever write a
book, or make a film, about beings who are not in
some ways mirrors of us. We think with our human
minds, therefore we are forever imprisoned in them.
David is of course us. With art, we want to know
about us in it. This is our inborn hunger to find
others with whom to identify, to soothe us, to help
us grow, to add dimensions to ourselves that were
not there before. Why do roses sing, if only to
themselves? Because we wish them to. And
because they just possibly might. No one knows.
Yet. To say David is just programmed--we are all
programmed. If I had lived in 1800 Spain, of course
I would not be writing this, but I also would have
been a different person. From childhood on, we are
imprinted. We play to our environment. We really
are all actors. And one of our main "conceits" is
that we love to dream; we need it. And movies
show us dreams. Do androids dream of electric
sheep? Did the movie walk a difficult line between what is laughingly called real and what is dizzyingly
wondrously unreal? Yes, to both. If we dismiss
dreams, we make reality the poorer for it, and
reality is poor enough as it is. Everything starts in a
dream. Everything is extrapolated from a dream.
We have no right to think we alone live to tell the
tale. If we throw away possibilities, we are like the
William Hurt character in the film--we have no
earthly idea what we have created and how far
better it might be than are we, who think we are so
wise and crafty and clever. Perhaps we shall find one day this exact sentient
feeling and awareness in what we have created or
what is around us already. God help us, if this
comes true, and we just junk it away like an old
computer, before we find out, or, worse still, after.
Rating:
Summary: An embarrassing failure
Review: I have been a pretty big fan of Speilberg all my life so the fact that this...thing was directed by him was nothing more than a let down in the worst of ways! First of all, the movie lacks feeling. The characters failed at making me feel anything for them and were so predictable it was torturing!!! Haley Joel Osmont tried to come across as pitiful, wanting us to feel sorry for him, but I tell you if there has ever been a character who tried TOO hard, it would be him. There is such thing as subtlety you know and by him overdramatizing as much as he did, made this film impossible for me. I couldn't care less what happened to the little robotic boy! Secondly, there were too many plotholes and prolonged scenes that made this a complete nuisance to watch at all much less at over two hours long! And that ending...well, I won't even go there; I do have some restraint. I can't help but wonder had Kubrick directed, maybe at least the bleakness would've been felt. Speilberg, WHAT were you thinking!?!
Rating: 
Summary: Apt title.
Review: A mixture of Stanley Kubrick's ponderousness with Steven Spielberg's need to please. The result, obviously, is a ponderous movie that needs to please -- an ultimately unhappy combination, to say the least! (Though by movie's end, Kubrick's share of it is hard to discern.) Speaking of mixtures and combos, *A.I.* blends aspects of *Peter Pan*, *Pinocchio*, *The Wizard of Oz*, *A Clockwork Orange*, and even (or rather especially) *The Stepford Wives*. Set vaguely in a post-global-warming future, it's about a newly manufactured computerized kid (a "mecha-child") who has been programmed to unconditionally love his mom and dad. In other words, it's a parent's ultimate fantasy -- after all, what parent hasn't considered from time to time how much easier things would be if their pimple-scarred, pot-smoking, sullen teenage brat had simply stopped growing at about the pre-puberty age of, say, nine years? And that isn't the only intriguing question the movie raises. There's the notion of the Peter Pan archetype, e.g., the kid who never grows up (obviously Steven Spielberg's ultimate fantasy, given his past work): but what if that magic ideal was twisted into something resembling a Stepford Boy? And what if money could indeed buy one love? (The mecha-kid is actually purchased in the movie by a young father.) I must admit all of this had me secured to my seat. One can applaud Spielberg for not manufacturing pat answers to all the questions that the script raises -- that much he's learned over the past couple decades. But, see, the problem is that all this good stuff is in the first hour of the movie (meaning, the first THIRD of the movie). It turns out that Spielberg isn't interested in the more dramatic, but more difficult, ethical issues: he'd rather simplify things, get the mecha-kid on the road, have him miss his mommy. Indeed, the remaining 2 hours are simply about a kid who, well, misses his mommy. To each his own taste . . . for me, this savor is too sickly sweet. Did I applaud Spielberg earlier? Well, I can also condemn him for not knowing when to quit, for his appalling sentimentality, for his preference for cinematic toys (special effects) over cinematic truth. *A.I.* is the bloated result of an artificial artist's intelligence.
Rating:
Summary: A robot with neural feedback...
Review: I was really very moved by this movie. We are transfered to an age where robots are really crucial for humans and also so much hated by the last.
A new idea from a mecha(nic) creator of robots promised to give to a robot "feelings", and especially love, love towards the person who innitiates its program. Love would be the core so that the robot would communicate with the world and receive a responce as a feedback and build from this feedback a "personality". Classical neural network ideas of course way beyond our reach in the near future. So the robot will be transformed from a mecha(nic) creature to an orga(nic) creature, right. The prototype was tested to a couple who had their son in hybernation for 5 years waiting for a cure to his heavy illness.
All went well and the robot was happy and the couple was happy until their son recovered from his illness. Their son did not like his wired opponent and made its life miserable. Finaly the robot child did a mistake, without its fault, that could harm their sons life and the couple decided to get rid of the robotic child. Actually the person who insisted to get rid of David(The name of the robot child) was his "artificial" father. "His" artificial mother, monica who loved David very much was forced to abandon David near the place he was created. She couldn't give him to the company that created him, she knew that they would discard him. After then David tries to find his "Blue Fairy" which will transform him to a "real" boy. But actually what is real. Are we real? Aren't we all creations of someone more intelligent than us?
David believed that if he was human he could return to his mother and live happily with his brother.
Davids wonders are amazing and Spielberg did absolutely his best to give life to Cubricks imagination. A real challenge to any director, you either succeed or fail. And I think that Spielberg succeeded! This is one of my fovorite movies, actually it is the only movie of its kind that realy moved me after blade runner. It is very interesting to observe how people love blade runner more as years pass by. This might be also the case with this movie. I think that the end of the film was the most amazing and moving part of it. I suggest you see this film, it might move you also.
Rating:
Summary: A.I. Artificial Intelligence
Review: The film artist formally known as Spielberg and the beginning to his ultimate and eventual demise.
| 
