Rating: 
Summary: A.I. - surprisingly excellent!
Review: The first time I saw the previews for A.I. and the posters, I thought that this was just a glorified version of the movie, "D.A.R.Y.L." - a movie about a boy robot who proves to be much more than wires and metal. However, A.I. surpassed my initial thoughts by its thought-provoking plot, great effects and talented cast.I would not recommend this film to everyone I know. This film would not appeal to dullards and simpletons who prefer movies where everything is explained to them, where the storyline/details are spoon-fed to their audience. This movie caters to filmgoers who have intelligence as well as imagination. Sometimes, you need to "read between the lines" to see what's really going on. I can see how the ending might seem short, and there are definitely as many Speilberg characteristics as well as Kuberick ones in this film. But, do not let your biases for the two taint your views of the movie... I give A.I. 5 stars for its lush visual effects, storyline and acting. Kuberick would have been proud!
Rating: 
Summary: And I'm being slightly generous w/ the 3 stars...
Review: I don't see how anyone could find this movie to be gripping. It was just too bizarre for my taste and it moved along SO SLOWLY. It never really drew my in, it just drags on and on. Other people said it moved them to tears...well, I felt sorry for David but I just never got that attached. He was a little too creepy, especially at 1st. Joe was GREAT though!! He was the absolute best part of the movie and the only thing other than some great FX that made this movie worth my time. Not at all what I expected.
Rating: 
Summary: A.I. -Captivating
Review: I think this movie is a fascinating piece of work. It took alot of imagination to create it and make it intriguing. I was totally captivated by it. It held my attention all the way through and the interesting thing is that each hour of the film was so different than the last. The first hour is very light and lets you know about the world as it is and how David (the boy mecha) came about. The second hour is somewhat dark,but, comical as it lets you begin a journey with David to find the Blue Fairy (whom he hopes will change him into a real boy) and introduces you to the hilarious and inticing "Gigolo Joe" who befriends David and is wonderfully played by Jude Law. The last 40 minutes becomes rather sad but very thought prevoking and almost disturbing. You will see when you watch it. David is played superbly by Haley Joel Osment and Jude Law, never seems to make a bad movie or any role uninteresting. I wish he had been in the film more and they had explored his character further. He added a light comical touch to the film and his role was very neccessary. This film moved me and was very unique in that it was like no other film I ever saw. I enjoyed it and will probably go see it again.
Rating: 
Summary: I have seen this movie
Review: Unlike the person who reviewed this movie without seeing it first, I have seen it. I also had great expectations before seeing it, and in fact enjoyed the first part of it. However, after about an hour the story took a left turn into a realm that I found to be ridiculous and unsavory. The ending was demoralizing and totally unsatisfactory in my opinion. I would not see this film again.
Rating:
Summary: A Brief Addendum
Review: A Brief Addendum to my last review - a few matters of interest to Kubirck lovers: 1) the mecha-boy's name is David, so is the stiff human protagonist in 2001 (Coincidence you say? Read on.); 2) David's Super Toy robotic companion named Teddy's voice sounds eerily similar to HAL, the "malfunctioning" supercomputer from 2001; 3) in Rouge City keep an eye out for a bar named Strangelove's and note the Clockwork Orange-esque attention to human anatomy in the architecture and artwork; 4) Gigolo Joe's little moonlight dance evokes images of not only the Tin Woodman, but also of Alex from A Clockwork Orange (I'm Singin' in the Rain...WHACK!) amd 5) Monica and David's drive through the forest echoes a similar drive taken by Alex and his droogs. I could go on further, but I'll let you see for yourself. A.I. is full of Kubrickian reference points. It's a jewel of a movie full of contradictory associations and subtle shadings of insight accessible to any who care to look deeper. ENJOY.
Rating:
Summary: Not great, but not bad, either
Review: I read the Newsweek article about this film before I saw it, so I was aware that Kubrick had worked on it for 15 years before handing the whole project over to Spielberg. Given the contrasts and differences between the two directors, I was interested to see what the final film would be like. First, the good news. You'll probably be entertained, if nothing else, by this film. The special effects are worth seeing. The two main leads, Osment and Law, do an excellent job in their respective roles. The story line has its touching moments, but takes some weird twists and turns, especially at the end, although if you're a Kubrick fan, or a sci-fi fan, you may find the last part the most entertaining. Osment does a fine job with the little boy's part. No doubt this film will launch his career. The robo-stud Gigolo Joe, played by Jude Law, is a nice touch, and Law also does a fine job with this part too. The role had some good development to it (unlike some of the other characters) but could have used even more. Still, his part was a nice touch, and Law is completely convincing in the role. William Hurt's dialog seems a little forced in his main speech where he's explaining what's happened to Osment after Osment has found his way back, but it's okay. And now the bad news. The first one-third of the film works well, as we're introduced to the family and the artificial boy, played by Osment, who makes his appearance and becomes part of the family. After that the film takes a distinctly dark turn when the family's biological son wakes up from his coma, as his relationship to Osment becomes more and more disturbed. Eventually the mother abandons Osment rather than return him to the company to have him destroyed, and the rest of the movie is about Osment's trying to find his way back. However, the film really loses itself at this point, in the middle third. The "Flesh Fair" carnival scene, where humans destroy the cast-away robots, or mecha's, as they're called, on-stage, wouldn't even work well in a B sci-fi movie, and it works even less well here, in what would have been an otherwise acceptable, although not great, movie. However to mention the only good thing about the scene, the crowd gets pissed off at the ringmaster who is about to destroy Osment (because Osment is so life-like that they don't believe he's a mecha) and starts pelting him with garbage. At that point the crowd of onlookers riots and allows Osment and Law to escape. The last third of the movie is in some ways the most interesting, but is also the weirdest, as there's not much to connect it to the rest of the movie, as Osment becomes frozen in the sea ice in his copter after escaping the Flesh Fair and is discovered 2000 years later, barely functioning, but basically still "alive." His rescuers are an advanced race of robots who have out-lived humanity, which is long dead. Like archaeologists, they are trying to reconstuct man and his civilization, and Osment is the greatest discovery they've made yet about mankind, since his memories are still intact, and he is the only person they've ever seen, artificial or not, that ever knew a real human being. They also look like the gracile aliens we've come to recognize, only these look even more like Giacometti statues they're so slender and thin. Anyway, the last third is pretty far out stuff, and although interesting, it isn't enough to save the movie either, which has obviously lost its way by this point as far as trying to bring the story to an even remotely meaningful or sensible ending. However, if you go into the movie not expecting too much and simply wishing to be reasonably entertained for your 8 bucks, it's not a bad way to spend a Sat. or Sun. afternoon.
Rating:
Summary: A perfect fable for postmodern times
Review: First of all, let me begin by saying that I am a huge Kubrick fan and have been for a long time. His movies are constructed to provoke and disturb, not to cozy up to the viewer. Spielberg, on the other hand works from a more viewer-friendly aesthetic. This movie is, for better or worse, a synthesis of these two styles. A.I. has Kubrick's eye for detail and exhibits his penchant for filmic metaphor and allusion, while still exhibitng Spielberg's concern to connect with his audience. The movie itself is about a robot child, essentially built to replace human children in a world where living spaces, natural resources and humanity itself are precious commodities. The beginning third concerns the Swinton family's coming to grips with their new mecha-child, David. It is a very Freudian (notice the book Monica reads on the toilet) chapter, with tons of subtle visual narrative strokes a la Kubrick. Spielberg peeks his head in to make us feel for the robot-child. The second third revolves around David's adventures through a Wonderland of nightmarish imagery and a thought-provoking quest to become a real boy. This is where Spielberg's visual style takes over and he paints a picture of a Bladerunner-meets-A-Clockwork-Orange city not too far removed from modern-day Las Vegas. The visuals here literally fill up the screen, creating one of the most amazing film spectacles that I have EVER seen. Kubrick's style is still in place though, and much of the imagery is downright disturbing. A typical Spielbergian rising full moon become a horrifying bane for David and his fellow replicants. A scene where mechas pick through piles of discarded robot parts to repair themselves echoes Romero's Night of the Living Dead and later parallels Rouge City's buildings shaped like human body parts strung out across a neon wasteland. Very thought-provoking stuff. Everything humans create in this movie is made in their image (biblical creation reference)- their robots, their architecture, etc. Might David (yet another biblical reference?) be a posthuman Adam? The final chapter is actually several endings (see 2001: A Space Odyssey) wherein David's quest is completed, SORT OF. Without giving too much away, David journeys to a submerged city (another visual triumph) to complete his quest. Here he confronts his origins and deals with his "artificiality." Spielberg's visual style is married here with Kubrick's - a city ravaged by the consequences of global warming still seems somewhat majectic and mysterious with its gutted hulking skyscrapers jutting out of a sparkling ocean. (Dare I say that this might be a reference to the lost city of Atlantis? - not the Disneyfied version, mind you.) This theme of lost civlization coupled with the emergence of mechas as a dominant labor force in this vision of the future, leads to an interesting conclusion. I hear all sorts of complaints about the ending having too much dialogue, being too sentimental and drawn out, and being essentially tacked on by Spielberg. I don't find any of these to be the case. I have read a synopsis of the original treatment by Kubrick and the ending is EXACTLY as he wanted it. Furthermore, the ending is not sentimental, if you think about its implications. As far as being drawn out is concerned, I guess that depends on one's tastes. Too much dialogue? Again a matter of taste, but come on folks, if you want more thrills and spills, stay home and watch some "Reality" TV or wait for Jurassic Park 3 to be released. This is a serious philosophical movie that tries not to be didactic, but still wants to parlay a message. I thought the entire film (even the ending) was paced quite nicely, somewhat closer Kubrick's more glacial development than Spielberg's more populist flashy fast-paced narrative. This is not to say that there are not elements of Spielberg here, they are obvious, but the manifest themselves more as playful references and as a tone of youthful wonderment in certain more imaginative sequences. Those who go to see a Spielberg film will be turned-off by A.I.'s generally bleak picture of the future and it's pessimistic treatment of humanity. Those who go to see a Kubrick film might not expect some of the warmer Spielbergian pockets. But those who go with open minds might uncover a unique treasure in film - a movie that makes us both feel and think, dealing with topics as varied as the human condition, man vs. machine, child abandonment, love, etc. In response to the viewer who did not completely feel for David, that's part of the point. This film deals with, more than anything else, the nature of human love and man's responsibility to nurture it. In having us not completely "feel" for David as we did for "E.T." Spielberg turns the question back around to us: what responsibility do we as human beings have for our creations? On a biblical scale, by "playing God" that is, in creating A.I.'s should we not love them as God loves all his creation? This movie to me is an extension of Kubrick's 2001, showing man's struggle to compete with his own technology and the ultimate evolution that occurs as an outgrowth of this struggle. It is also a fairy tale, be it a nightmarishly grim (or Grimm) one. Tinges of Marx, Freud, Darwin and Nietzche show up in various places throughout. Biblical themes, mythological references and fairy tale allusions are combined to superb affect. Some of these referenced include: the creation story (Adam), Pinnochio, Peter Pan, the Wizard of Oz, and Frankenstein. This last one is of particular interest, a story of how man is confronted with the horror of creation and its consequences. Anyone who has read Shelley's Frankenstein will recognize its themeatic similarities to A.I. However, a subtle and more ingenious detail is that both share the exact same narrative structure, what is called a framed narrative, where the story is told by a narrator removed from the action of the story, as if it is being read aloud to another. What are the implications of all this? What does it all mean? See it for yourself and prepare to think. At times it's frustrating, at others it's mesmerizing, but never does it fail to provoke.
Rating:
Summary: A.I.- a grand vision of the future
Review: This movie was outstanding. The visuals were breathtaking. I loved Jude Law performance. His character was interesting. Haley Joel Osment is going to be a future star in the next coming years. Steven Spielberg was the right man to bring this story to the big screen.
Rating:
Summary: Beyond Pinocchio: How does one feel "real"?
Review: Steven Spielberg is a director who likes to make lusty grabs at our heartstrings, but this drama is far beyond "E.T." In a future America, a team of scientists (headed by William Hurt) design a "mecha" child who can feel love - or at least have it hardwired into his circuitry. The drama that unfolds keep opening up into wider perspectives and deeper questions. It is an immensely human movie about "artificial" intelligence, probing human ideas about what "artificial" means. (Does something cease to be "real" because it was designed by human beings?) The plays for our heartstrings feel intrusive. There is scarcely a moment without John Williams's score leading us by the hand with strings, soft piano, and motherly voices; and Haley Joel Osment has a heartbreaking way with his eyes. The middle section of the film, in which the boy goes on an astonishing quest for Pinocchio's blue fairy in hopes of being made into an "real live boy" (read: organic), accompanied by a male prostitute robot played by Jude Law (with a little digital manipulation of the actor's movement and appearance), asks for some tall suspensions of disbelief. When the film opens into a fascinating third act, there is an unresolved tension around the need (?) for a happy ending, but also some fascinating ironies about what makes a species consider itself real - or not real. Even the "happy ending" is troubling and bittersweet, like the questions the film asks. This is a different kind of film from Spielberg - it is not all special effects and feel-good sentimentality. Recommended.
Rating:
Summary: A.I.: The movie that makes us Think
Review: This movie is Sci-Fi/Drama with a hint of Fantasy and Fairy Tale. Expect laughter, expect tears, expect a bit of the unexplainable; it will crawl into your heart in a very unique way. This concept by Stanley Kubrick will play on your heart with a little boy robot, whose only fault, like the former 2001 computer Hal 9000, is that he is exposed to sensations and information that he interprets in unpredictable and dangerous ways, sometimes to his credit, sometimes to his peril. We see a lot of historical overtones and issues in this story. Man, who once put his fellow men into the arena for barbaric slaughter games, recounts this episode with robots, who are too many in a world of people. Morality is at issue on the premise of how real can a robot can feel. "Did not God create Adam to love Him?" states David's creator, Professor Hobby. Adam's eyes were opened to the world of sin when he ate the forbidden fruit, David's eyes are opened to the real world to which he is plundered. The forbidden fruit is a place at the end of the world to which David quests himself, along with his friends Teddy Bear and Gigolo Joe. Here he meets his destiny in the eyes of his creator, and the eyes of something else his circuits were not designed to experience. He finds what he seeks, but not in the way you'd expect. Fault to anyone who reveals what brought tears to my eyes at the movie's end. I would recommend this movie in good rating. I am not easily touched to a story-line on a 2-D screen, albeit 3-D sound, but Mr. Speilberg does well to bring Mr. Kubrick's concept to life, as a metaphore to the movie and a unique robot boy, David. I will wait until December 31st to call Artificial Intelligence the movie of the year, but I will say it is the movie that makes us think.
|
