Rating: 
Summary: Robots might Inherit the Earth
Review: This film addresses emotional problems that may arise when robots are developed to be almost indistinguishable from humans. The emotional conflicts are experienced by both parties. I thought this film broke new ground and the issues were well presented. In the end, the film has robots evolving into much more complex beings than human beings; ultimately they then replace human life on earth. That's challenging and, for me, made the film all the more interesting. - I thought some scenes in the '2nd Act' ( of 3 ) were gratuitous. Lead actors played compellingly and special effects were impressive. Films like this I think can help us to understand the nature of life and love. Well done !
Rating: 
Summary: Less than 1 star!
Review: NOT A GOOD MOVIE (especially for kids) Vulgar and inhumane in the way they treat their "mecca's". Mecca prostitution? Come on, it's rated PG 13...I definitely would not want my kids to see this. It's boring and not very appealing. I can think of a ton of better things to do than sit through 3 hours of this movie again. I DO NOT RECOMMEND IT!
Rating: 
Summary: Very underrated piece of work
Review: I can see why this movie has been referred to as a love it/hate it sort of thing, but I can't understand how it can be so easily dismissed by so many people. Obviously it's easier to have appreciated its beauty when one actually enjoyed it, as I most certainly did, but it's sad that the general feeling I get from the general public is that AI is a dud. I don't mean to focus on the negative in order to say how much I like it, but I guess the main reason I wanted to say something here is because I'm tired of hearing this movie talked about as a big "miss" for Spielberg. How can I put into words my reaction to a movie that simply feels inspired to me? Um, it was visually beautiful, like an exact cross between what we'd expect from a Kubrick movie and a Spielberg movie. The characters are played masterfully, the story is a touching modern fairy tale, John Williams' score perfectly conveys the occasionally stunning and always engaging scenes, and much more that would start to make feel that I'm being long-winded. But anyway, I suppose that the reason this movie is awkward for many people is that it's difficult to figure out if it's dark or uplifting, pessimistic or hopeful, or even a family film or an adult film. It's like classic fairy tales in that sense: They can be fun, happy, and light-hearted, yet often deal with very dark themes and situations. This movie is like nothing I've seen before, and it's touching in a way that's unique to me so far. Even if someone doesn't enjoy it, I would think he or she would recognize it as an ambitious and interesting film.
Rating:
Summary: Pseudo Intelligence PI
Review: This is a film driven more by characters and character motivation than by plot. However, the film's downfall is that it contradicts itself repeatedly, which destroys all continuity rendering it impotent of any legitimacy. Ultimately the denouement is an insult to all of us.
Rating:
Summary: must be the best movie i've ever seen
Review: oh my gawd...how can you not say this movie was excellent? i'm ok with speilburg and i love stanley kubrick, and i'm a big fan now of haley joel osment...and this movie was just, OH, i haven't had such a time in a movie theatre before! i saw it with my friend and we went to a really secluded theatre, so there was only one other lady sitting in the back, which was good, cause i CRYED throughout the ending. I MEAN WHAILING PEOPLE!!! hands down, best movie i've ever seen next to a clockwork orange. SEE IT. YOU KNOW YOU WANT TO.
Rating:
Summary: Sheesh, what a waste of my money and time
Review: The trailer to this film had me excited. I really wanted to see this film. I am not a person who takes reviews into account when it comes to films, because so many people always see something different when it comes to movies. Please, do not waste your money. This film sucked. I cannot even say it was a bad film, 'sucked' describes it best. I told my daughter that Steven Spielberg does not make a bad film, you will like this. I guess there really is a first time for everything. What a flop.
Rating:
Summary: Unexpected and misunderstood - see it again!
Review: This may well be the last big-budget art film we ever see, folks. Word of mouth is killing it, but Hollywood has itself to blame -- and Spielberg can take some of the blame too. We all "want to be entertained", but there was a time when this didn't mean leaving your entire brain at home. A satisfying movie was one that engaged all, or most, of your faculties, albeit pleasurably. That's all different now. The industry has spent the years since Jaws, Star Wars and Rocky, and particularly the last decade, weaning American audiences off films that don't flatter them, don't satisfy their cravings for power and sex fantasies, don't reinforce their disgust toward people less clever or fashionable, don't leave their point of view unchallenged, and don't always leave them cheerful, triumphant, "uplifted", and feeling as hip as anybody else. I just read a letter-to-the-editor saying A.I. was the worst film the letter-writer had ever seen, because it left her feeling disturbed; it ripped her heart out and left it lying there. Well, how much of the world's cinema could this woman not enjoy? Chinatown, Citizen Kane, Midnight Cowboy, Blade Runner, La Dolce Vita, The Parallax View, Black Narcissus, Papillon, Raging Bull, in fact nearly anything by Stanley Kubrick, Nicolas Roeg, Ken Russell, Orson Welles, David Lynch, Franklin J. Schaffner, Sam Fuller, Ingmar Bergman, half of Shakespeare's output. A.I. is NOT McDonald's moviemaking!! It does not deliver on cliche' payoffs, it doesn't connect all the dots for you, it requires you to put two and two together occasionally. It doesn't traffic in cheap irony, phony uplift, contrived suspense, or sugarcoated homilies delivered as profound truths. It is for those with the palate for a richer diet of subtler flavors. It is fresh. For those who feel it doesn't develop any of its ideas but always takes the wrong course, realize that this is a picaresque, an innocent's (or semi-innocent's) journey through a world of rogues and vagabonds -- a genre older than Voltaire's Candide, and as recent as the re-release of Apocalypse Now. For those who think it's aliens at the end, note the astonishment of those strange beings that David has been in contact with LIVING things -- meaning they themselves aren't living, so must be robots. Our creations will inherit the earth. This conclusion was as Kubrick intended, even to the final virtual recreation of Monica, although Kubrick intended to show her fading out of existence before David's eyes. Spielberg elects to spare us this, though we know it will happen. For those who feel it makes no point, but add that it manipulates your emotions with the torments of a little boy, let me say that IS the point: for he is NOT a boy, but a machine; if you feel any emotion for this machine because it RESEMBLES or ACTS LIKE a boy, that IS the entire point: what is it you are actually responding to? To the reality, or to certain surface characteristics? Doesn't it strike you that this is the foundation of ALL manipulation and deception? Note that this is raised during the flesh fair by the robot-hunter, who tells the audience they are being manipulated by a robot designed to appeal to their emotions. He is quite correct; but his response is to destroy it for its very deceitfulness. The crowd takes the appearance for the reality and attacks the robot-hunter for (apparently) endangering a real boy. But this robot is designed to manipulate its owners not for any sinister purpose, but solely so that they may love one another. THIS IS WHAT HUMANS ARE ALSO BUILT TO DO! It's been said that if babies and toddlers weren't so cute, they would have been destroyed by their parents millennia ago and the race would be extinct. But we are programmed as thoroughly and deeply as David the robot: note what we respond to. Roger Ebert, on the other hand, has programmed himself to make other distinctions, and feels nothing for David BECAUSE he's a machine. Roger was not manipulated, and this says something about him. The point of the film is NOT what robots may be able to do, but the limitations of human beings. We are constantly reminded of human programming. We watch a female robot put on her makeup in the beginning, then we see Monica -- putting on her makeup. She grieves for her son, but we first see him as unconscious as a doll in cryogenic suspension; then we see him brought home, mother all joyful -- still inert, with tubes sticking out of him. Later, he informs David that "I'm real" -- and rises to walk on electronic leg braces, like a bionic cyborg. In the flesh fair, people respond to the apparent humanity of robots with hatred, to the apparent humanity of a boy-robot with sympathy. No surprise; we adore cute children but regard adult strangers with suspicion,and perhaps hostility. Evolutionary programming? If you think our capacity to learn and alter our "programming" distinguishes us, be reminded that artificial intelligence systems are designed to do just that. Finally, if David's quest is too monotonously one-dimensional, I ask, have you never met an obsessive? This film is not being given a fair shake by many critics, and even by many of its supporters. There is more here than meets the eye, but many of us have allowed Hollywood to program us to respond positively only to movies with certain characteristics. If you think it's long and slow, could you sit through 2001: A Space Odyssey or Barry Lyndon or Lawrence of Arabia? If you think it's disturbing, didn't you feel that way watching Blade Runner (which also failed on its initial release)? This film will be revisited someday, and you can help. Give it another look. My wife and I are going to see it for a fourth time tonight. We're not fanatics, and the film is not perfect; but it is layered and subtle (unusual for Spielberg), and grows on you.
Rating: 
Summary: WEAK WEAK WEAK WEAK!
Review: You're gonna spill your coffee when you see the terrible way this movie ends. OH MAN! Its bad and if you DON'T believe me then go see it for yourself. Its a mockery to all Sci Fi films, its Spielberg's annoying WAY of NEVER letting a movie end without a "good feeling" OH MAN! The ending totally takes a 180 degree turn to SOMETHING way in left field. I don't wanna ruin it so you can laugh...at how outrageous it was. Its like if at the end of Titanic Jaws comes out to save everyone on the boat. Yeah, its that stupid. NOW the film UP to this point was PRETTY good. With oscar calibur performances by Haley Joel and Jude Law. I was impressed, even surprised that it wasn't as bad as I thought. Then it Got to a point that would have ROCKED if it had just ENDED there. BUT NO it went on. the ending has NARRATION FOR GOD'S SAKE! It came out of ... nowhere, the beginning had no narration and then POOF! Suddenly spielberg assumes the audience is too stupid to comprehend his...ending without a humble voice explaining everything to us. Thank you for insulting my intelligence...This is just another summer stinker... It has so much potential if spielberg would have...ended it where it SHOULD HAVE ended.
Rating:
Summary: Kubrick and Spielberg: The Perfect Combo
Review: I've seen many people who have been disappointed with A.I., and I barely understand. They think Spielberg ruined it with adding more cheer and love than Kubrick's darkness. Well, the movie has both. The darkness is fun, the love is sweet and emotional, and the score is the best I've heard in a LONG time. Haley Joel Osment gives yet another great performance, as always, and he will steal your heart! Although I did find Jude Law's performance as Gigolo Joe, a robotic escort service, to be somewhat empty and un-needed, everyone else gave solid performances, Esp. the woman that played David's mother, she was good at "both parts" of the movie. As far as awards go, I doubt this movie itself will win awards, but Haley Joel Osment should be nominated for something. And if the score for this movie doesn't even get nominated, they need to wake up and listen! So if you're expecting both Spielberg and Kubrik magic, love, and darkness, this is the right movie for you. I thoroughly enjoyed it!
Rating:
Summary: Dark, but one of this year's best
Review: I personally gave it five stars, but that's just my opinion; nearly everyone I've talked to thought it was too dark and depressing, expecting your average Speilberg movie; but it's impossible if it's Stanley Kubrick's story. What we're left with isn't necessarily a hybrid, but defininetly something unique. I loved this movie. Visually, it's spectacular (especially the last part), and perfectly paints a post-apocalyptic, humane world that has been shaken by mechas, or robots. I found just watching the different cities and landscapes breathtaking. The trailer is deceiving- Haley Joel's character David is not some warm, loving robotic son; he's not a human E.T. Instead, he's an overprogrammed robot who desperately and even self-destructively is trying to win the love of his mommy, and this poses danger to those around him. Haley Joel's acting prowless in this film far surpasses his disturbed character in "The Sixth Sense," or his bright, love-the-world stereotype in "Pay it Forward." He does a flawless job as David, very spooky and haunting. Jude Law as Gigalo Joe also does a wonderful job as a bot; he kind of reminded me of the Artful Dodger from "Oliver." The entire film is dark, but never uninteresting, and very provocative. It's definitely not a kid movie; one of the most haunting scenes in the film is when David hacks the face of a clone of him to pieces. It ends perfectly, and I won't give it away, but it's very Kubrick, especially "2001." I really recommend it to you, but don't be expecting your average Speilberg in it.
|
