Rating: 
Summary: colossal flop
Review: How many directors does it take to ruin an amazing story? Apparently, two are enough if they're exceptionally talented. To anyone who read Brian Aldiss' original story it is painfully clear this film is an attempt to explain the riddles and complex philosophical questions raised in the original story rather than to simply tell a story. The transition between Kubrick's film/vision and Spielberg's film/vision is entirely obvious. It's almost as though there are two films in one. The second part of the film, after the mechanical boy is abandoned in the woods by his "mother", attempts to explain the first part by paralleling the story with the mythical story of Pinocchio. This attempt, in my opinion, is the fundamental flaw of this movie. It somehow transformed a film with depth into a 2-dimensional circus of sights and sounds, a road movie that ends up at the bottom of the ocean, a conglomeration of Spielberg's usual schtick. This movie subverted itself with it's own imagery. If you don't believe me, read Brian Aldiss' original short story. It is deeper than any ocean this film has to offer.
Rating:
Summary: Worst Movie of the Century - An Embarassment...
Review: DO NOT waste your time, or money. Long, withered and withering. Boring with absolutely no point. Speilberg should hang his head... I wish I'd wasted my money somewhere else...
Rating: 
Summary: Not as good as expected...
Review: I purchased this movie hoping to see yet another spectacular Speilberg flick. Boy was it a let down. I suppose if I were a bit younger (Like 12 perhaps) I may have enjoyed it. It was very predictable and almost a paste together of a bunch of borrowed ideas. The Pinocchio concept was a bit far fetched, but it did make for interesting thought. Overall I was surprised at how bad the movie kept getting and wished it had ended 1/2 an hour sooner.
Rating: 
Summary: Relax Steve
Review: Oddly affecting, but emotionally muddled. And it takes itself very seriously.
Rating: 
Summary: A STUNNER!!!
Review: When I first saw this, I never blinked, and when I needed to go to the bathroom, I didn't. One of my ALL-TIME FAVORITES. It was a bit slow in the end, but by then I knew it was a fantasy and everything else in the movie made up for it BIG time. Speilberg did a fantastic job! Haley Joe Osment also did a fantastic job(I think he was even better than he was in "THE SIXTH SENSE"). Anyways, I came out of the theater fullfilled to the fullest. The special effects were great(A visual masterpiece!-through my eye), great acting, great score, and overall A.I.-Artificial Intelligence is a must-see film.
Rating:
Summary: Not as bad as some critics said (but what else is new?)!
Review: I just watched A.I. for the second time, and my first time on DVD. Let me start by saying that is is a beautiful DVD. The clear and colorful photography is captured perfectly on this disk, and it looks as great on the smaller screen as it does on the big screen.I liked this film a lot better the second time around. The first time I saw it I felt bored and annoyed with some of the sequences. The "Flesh Fair" sequence in particular was quite weak. I also disliked the obvious "real kid dislikes the fake kid" bit, and the "we have to get rid of the fake kid for the better good of the family" stuff. Although it is essential to the plot, it just seemed a bit too manufactured for me. On the positive side, it is a thoughtful picture that is an interesting take on humanity's attitudes, prejudice, and the universal need for love. Jude Law and Haley Joel Osment are fantastic as individuals and as a team. Their chemistry is great. Visually, as I mentioned before, the film is a winner. It just looks absolutely beautiful. The sets, costumes, digital landscapes, and so forth are top-notch. I guess it shouldn't have suprised me that critics and audiences in general bashed this film, in an era where a great picture like "Star Wars: Attack of the Clones" is not appreciated. I'm sure that there will be crusty, jaded, sci-fi fans that won't like "A.I.", but as with "Clones"...who wants to listen to that miserable bunch anyway???
Rating: 
Summary: This is Only My Opinion
Review: I saw Artificial Intelligence about a month ago, and I'm still wondering what the whole point was supposed to be. To create a robot-boy that can love unconditionally is a wonderful idea, especially for a family such as the one portrayed in this movie. The obvious problem with this idea is that human beings do NOT love unconditionally. This means trouble for a robot that can also feel emotional pain and suffering. I think the very beginning of this movie is the most intriguing part of the film. I'm referring to the scene in the large conference room where the seemingly brash and pretentious creator of David is explaining what they have accomplished. If I remember correctly, near the end of the scene, someone in the room poses a question something like, "This robot will love it's family, but what obligation does the family have to love it back?" I think the creator-guy just smiles at the questioner and says nothing. Probably the greatest introduction to a movie I have ever seen. Well done. My question is this. Why didn't the creators of David simply take away the robot's immense need to feel a reciprocation of love? Why create a robot that can feel BOTH love and sadness? Hasn't everyone asked this very question to our own Creator at some point? Why do we have the ability to do/feel/decide/act anything but what we know to be right and good? Why do we have a free will? That's the basic struggle of human existence. Have we not learned ANYTHING? I don't know, maybe the whole point of the movie is that we haven't learned anything, and that all the imperfections our Creator passed on to us will in turn be passed on to our creations. Maybe our Creator ceased to exist long ago, as the movie seems to hint at in the very end. Maybe we are alone. Pretty bleak. Pretty depressing. By the way, those were robots at the end, NOT aliens.
Jesus!!
Rating:
Summary: Beautiful but dull
Review: Science fiction stories dealing with the morally-fraught cusp between mechanical and biological machines are usually interesting because they inevitably grapple with question of what it means to be human. Is it our intelligence, our higher consciousness, or simply our capacity to love? Or is there really no difference between us and machines? 'A.I.' asks all the big questions, but then answers them rather disappointingly with a syrupy, overlong and surprisingly tedious remake of 'Pinocchio.' Spielberg's point seems to be that it's our myths of transformation that define our humanity. Fair enough point - I just wish he'd made it into a better film. 'A.I.' lacks the excitement of 'Blade Runner' and the emotional power of the heavily underrated 'Bicentennial Man,' both of which deal with similar material in a far more engaging way. Moreover, Spielberg's deservedly renowned skill as a masterful director seems to have deserted him. Over exposed film stock and an undercooked script do not a good film make. Still, at least 'A.I.' is ABOUT something, which puts it well ahead of Hollywood's usual platter of repetitive teen comedies and gormless action films.
Rating:
Summary: An Emotional Journey
Review: AI is a film about love. It is sentimental. Why? Because sentiment is beautiful and deep. This film is a lot deeper than most people understand. It asks questions about society and love, and it doesn't give us answers. It wants us to think. The main character in AI is a robot named David, and at the beginning of the film we think he is only artificial because he seems not to have feelings. We eventually realize that this robot has ideal qualities of compassion and tenderness that aren't present in any of the people - living or robots - around him. This leads David in an emotional journey, always looking for love and acceptance and unfortunately never finding it. Does this echo many peoples' lives of unrealized love? I think it does, and we have unsentimentality to thank for it. We should all learn to love with the tenderness of a child. Because David was a robot created with the ability to love, he was unique compared to all that surrounded him. Nobody could love him. Because David was created with feelings, in many ways he was a real child. But the tragedy is that we created someone with ideal love in a loveless world. David's quest for that love goes on for thousands of years....as all of the people he loved die. There is no doubt in my mind...AI is a melodrama in the finest sense of the word. It is one of the best love stories since "Camille." It made me cry. Anyone that knows how it feels to love someone who can't love you back will understand and be deeply touched by this magnificent, artistic, beautiful film. Haley Joel Osment displays a gifted talent for conveying love and emotion...he is a great actor. Jude Law is memorable and eventually heart-breaking as David's robot friend. AI is a classic, with a timeless message about life and love.
Rating:
Summary: In the end, two different visions are incompatible
Review: The back story of AI is fairly well known: It was a project of Stanley Kubrick's for many years, and after Kubrick died, Steven Spielberg went ahead and made the film. Ostensibly it was homage to Mr. Kubrick, but in fact it serves as a fascinating study of directorial philosophies and styles, and how a director's imprint on film is indelible. Originally based on the short story "Super-Toys Last All Summer Long" by Brian Aldiss AI tells the story of David (Haley Joel Osment) the first robot that is built to love. Many robots (or "mechas" as they are known) are loved -- animatronic sex toys called 'lover mechas,' are popular -- but this is a great leap forward: David will love, not be loved. A prototype David is built and delivered to the home of a couple whose son is cryogenically frozen. At first the mother is appalled, but in one desperate moment she activates David's love circuits. From that moment on, the instructions have warned her, David will love her completely and unfailingly. As guaranteed, he does -- but she doesn't. It seems clear that Kubrick's original vision was dark; corporate interests who will exploit grief and sell love for greater market share, or a society where maternal love itself becomes another mass-produced disposable commodity. But Spielberg doesn't seem interested in such themes, and steers the film into a rather dull retelling of -- surprise -- Pinocchio. Yes, David is the puppet who wants to be a real boy. Set against a backdrop of a post-apocalyptic earth where the sea levels have risen hundreds of feet, this top-drawer effects film is a routine rehash of Spielberg's favorite fairy tale. The mecha David is the puppet, his manufacturer Geppeto, his animatronic teddy Jiminy Cricket. These two basic visualizations -- presumably Kubrick's and Spielberg's -- simply do not mesh. A scene where a mecha is destroyed for human entertainment is a good example of crippling misdirection. A robot is fired from a cannon, set afire, and passed through rotating knives. The mecha is voiced by Chris Rock, who offers his usual street-jive patter. Yet we hear (and perhaps laugh) at Rock's voice only an instant before the mecha's burning face, torn from its head, smashes against the bars of David's cage. David -- and the audience -- recoils in horror. It's a woeful mismatch. The film shows flashes of originality and a great deal of technical brilliance. Jude Law, who plays a lover mecha ("Gigolo Joe", he is called, but all such mechas might be called that) is superb, and his make-up is unnerving. The supertoy, Teddy, is a perfect blend of pessimism and determination as he keeps up with David's quest for the Blue Fairy, all the while warning him of the dangers along the way. Even Haley Joel Osment does the best he can with his bafflingly contradictory role. He is most effective in the early scenes, when his skin looks like very expensive plastic, and his flat smile gives us, as well as his foster-mother, the willies. Visually the movie is stunning. The effects are always good and in some cases astonishing (such as the flying craft seen in the film's epilogue). Spielberg, even when he gets bogged down in mawkishness and sentimentality, is the master visual technician and takes us effortlessly through the surreal images of this strange future world. But his screen story -- at least starting from Kubrick's black thesis -- seems untenable. A story of a robot that can be "switched on" to love when it is convenient for the owner, and then cast away when not, should not have a happy ending. One can only wonder where Kubrick would have gone with the idea.
|
