Rating: 
Summary: GREATEST MOVIE I'VE EVER SEEN!
Review: Spielberg at his best. This tale is both uplifting and tragic. It shows the way an adolescent boy looks at his mother. Eventhough the length could've been truncated, it is one of the greatest movies I've ever seen!
Rating: 
Summary: D.A.R.Y.L. was better ...
Review: For those of you that remember the movie Daryl, with a somewhat similar theme, I can say that Daryl was much better. For being a 1989 movie, it is noit listed in amazon, but you can find it it in IMDb.I had the opportunity to see AI in an airplane going from Sao Paulo to Caracas. It is not the best place to see a movie, and it was probably an edited version for airlines. However, I believe it was more than enough. I usually love any kind of film, and it is very rare that I do not like one. I do love films made by Stanley Kubrick, specially 2001 Space Odyssey; Barry Lindon; and Eyes Wide Shut. I also love films made by Steven Spielberg, specially ET. However, Artificial Intelligence is neither a Stanley Kubrick film nor a Spielberg film. It actually is a very bad mixture. For me, the main problem is the actual story. Photography and Acting was good. But the story was filled with unnecessary episodes. The story does not need a complicated gigolo robot, or extraterrestrial beings, or the people's movement against "mecha". They are all irrelevant aspects to the main story, but use up must of the film time. No value added there ... The film is actually totally depressing and very un-Spielberg at that. But the film is also very un-Kubrick as caracters and situations are not developed at all, and the story actually ends, there is nothing left to the imagination as Kubrick usually did. Neither is the film "science fiction" as nothing of the fiction of science is explained I believe that movie fans should see this particular movie as a historic piece of film making in the life of two great directors. The film is not in itself good or remarkable. I am not sure that Stanley Kubrick did a favor to Spielberg ...
Rating:
Summary: A.I.: Artist's Identity-Crisis
Review: A clumsy prologue sets the tone for the entire film. William Hurt, addressing what first appears to be a classroom but turns out to be a boardroom, identifies the need for a "mecha" (for mechanical, as opposed to organic) boy capable of true love. His speech, and the Ben Kingsley narration that precedes it, is the clumsiest bit of exposition I've heard in a long time. There is nothing poetic or interesting in his words; it is just information. The remainder of the movie falls into much the same trap. The first act follows a mecha child, David, as he learns to understand his new "orga" family. Haley Joel Osment (as David) does wonders with these scenes, playing them rather creepily. Can you name another child actor who can construct a character as thoughtfully or as skillfully as him? He is consistent and solid throughout the whole thing, bringing a sense of realism (even in fantastic situations) to everything he does. That being said, the rest of the act is a mishmash of Kubrickian and Spielbergian, a mix that doesn't go down smoothly. Kubrick peddled analytical coldness, whereas Spielberg peddles fairy tales. One style would tend to cancel the other out, and that's just what happens here. Spielberg does a fine job emulating Kubrick's languid pacing (a trait that always bored me in Kubrick's own work), but he drowns it all in his trademark beatific lighting. I also felt very conscious of Spielberg's shot selection, consistently framing Osment in very telling ways (one notable shot had him seemingly wearing the kitchen light fixture as a halo). Spielberg is usually more subtle and confident in his shots. Here, I felt like he was trying to slam them down my throat. Or maybe trying to prove something to the late Mr. Kubrick. The second act introduces Jude Law as the lover mecha Gigolo Joe. Law is usually a fascinating actor to watch, whether it's for his talent or his physical beauty. He uses both to great effect here. Although the character is underwritten and is used as nothing more than a crude plot device, Law injects some much-needed energy and a sense of fun into the film. Spielberg actually lets loose in these sections concocting three stunning visual sequences. The first involves decimated mechas roaming a scrap heap for spare parts, only to be hunted down by envoys from the Flesh Fare looking for sacrifices. There's one stunning shot of a moon rising over the horizon. Ominously as it turns out, in a neat renunciation of Spielberg's most famous "E.T." shot. The second sequence is the Flesh Fare itself. It has rightly been called one of the darkest sequences Spielberg has ever put on film. Too bad this section was not explored more. The third sequence involves a trip to Rouge City, kind of a futuristic red-light district. It's like Vegas, only tackier (if you can believe that). There are some stunning pieces of sexually suggestive architecture that make you forget for a moment that you're watching a Spielberg film. The final act is misguided, let alone unwelcome. On the former note, and as many have said before, it is a typical Spielberg ending. He appears unwilling (or unable) to end the movie on a down note, and thus pushes the deux es machinas panic button. On the latter note, he's already given us a serviceable enough ending, one that truly cements the nature (and futility) of David's quest to become a real boy (which reminds me: We get that this is an update of the Pinocchio story, Steve; you don't have to keep reminding us ad infinitum). It would have been a truly sad and perfect ending to a movie that desperately needed one. Unfortunately, it went on for another half-hour, making me more angry and bored by the minute. Even though the visual imagery in this section is breathtaking and poetic, it truly stomps all over whatever good faith the rest of the narrative has built up. Other than Osment and Law, none of the rest of the cast does anything to interesting. Frances O'Connor, who is essentially the third lead, spends too much time in a melancholy and emotional coma. She is such an ignorant character you wonder why David was so desperate to return to her. A supertoy Teddy bear (named Teddy, natch) has some inspired moments, just not enough. And there's a voiceover cameo by Robin Williams that does little to enhance the movie, other than allowing you to remember how funny he was as the Genie in "Aladdin". Spielberg has made an ambitious but messy movie that will surely appeal to those in his audience content with superficial and unanswered questions. Those hoping for a little more from his talents will surely be displeased. Not to mention bored.
Rating:
Summary: Spielberg + Kubrick = A total mess of a movie
Review: Don't get me wrong, I love nearly every movie made by Spielberg and Kubrick. However, you cannot combine the style of each and get a good movie. Spielberg is all about making an emotional movie that you feel attached to (ET, Saving Private Ryan, Schindler's List, etc.) and Kubrick is all about making you question your basic concepts and beliefs. He doesn't want you to like the characters (Clock Work Orange, Full Metal Jacket, etc.) The two styles DO NOT mix. You cannot have a cute cuddly character (Haley Joel Osment) and have him tormented and tortured throughout the movie and have the movie going public like it. Spielberg tried to make ET 2. Cute cuddly creature that someone falls in love with, have them torn apart by forces beyond their control, and then have an emotional reunion at the end to make everybody feel better. All that, and the movie wouldn't end. The worst part was when the "Aliens" came. Jeez, couldn't they come up with a better ending than that?
Rating:
Summary: Steveley Kuberg
Review: This is Spielbergs first true SF Movie. And he does his best. It is the best MOVIE I have ever seen before!
If you watch the movie twice, and watch it twice you shal, you will see many elements that we saw in Kubricks movies, mixed with elements of the director and artist Steven Spielberg. And that is what makes this motion picture so special.
It is propably the flick with the greatest HEART that hollywood ever made. Let us not forget the IMAGES, let us not forget the SOUND, let us not forget the LOVE
Rating: 
Summary: Two greats don't make an even greater
Review: The effects are very cool, and Jude Law is fun to watch, but this film overall is just plan lame. It's as though Spielberg tried to direct as if he were Stanley Kubrik, which he definitely isn't. The two directors' styles clashed severely and ultimately hurt the vision of the film. I've never walked out of a movie in the theater but by the time the 2nd hour was up (with much more to go) I was ready to split.
Rating:
Summary: Ignorance is NOT bliss
Review: All I have to say is this: Those who thought A.I. was not a good movie (God, some even go so far as to say it's "terrible"), probably have parents/grandparents who said the same thing about 2001: A Space Odyssey when it was released. Obviously, everyone has a right to an opinion, but the level of ignorance and misinterpretation surrounding this movie only solidifies its virtues. Luckily there are some of us who can recognize them.
Rating:
Summary: Blade Runner/Mad Max/Wizard Of Oz/Pinnochio/2001 remixed
Review: Imagine all the above cut to ribbons, covered with ice cold water and stuffed in a food mixer, allowed to dry for three hours and re-stitched together. Well.....that's just about A.I. Spielberg proves what a mess he is capable of making of a poorly realised Stanley Kubrick project adapted from a feeble short story. I like Kubrick and Spielberg has made at least two great films. A.I. doesn't do justice to anyone or anything. All the above films were great and somehow brought freshness to old ideas. This film is a stale hotch-potch of all the above and hasn't an ounce of originality to it.
Rating:
Summary: "We are in a cage"
Review: This movie gets mixed reviews, and it's interesting to ponder why. To some it is just sentimental fluff, to others a deep and absorbing critique of what makes us what we are. The parallels to the Pinocchio story in the film are obvious, but rather than desribe the whole, there was one particular scene I thought worth highlighting. First, some background. The plot is mostly about a "child" robot (David), searching for his lost mother. At one point, he finds a statue of a blue fairy under the sea, and he thinks, from a long lost fable, that it will make him a "real boy" and take him to his mother, so he begins to 'pray' to it-ala the Virgin Mary. At this point a huge structure gently falls on his undersea craft, and traps him there. His talking teddy bear says, "We are in a cage". To me this scene is very poignant, and delightfully, but sadly contrived. Whilst the child is in this state, he is indeed trapped in a dreamworld, in which his mind cannot perceive reality. The parallel to some religious states can't be missed. For two thousand years, he sits there and prays, until awoken by futuristic beings. The important thing here, is not that he prays to a statue, or dreams, or hopes, but that he is trapped there and can't get out. *He has come to the point where he can no longer break free from his dream*. In the context of the movie, as Jude Law says as 'Gigolo Joe', "to wish for something which isn't there", is peculiar to us, as opposed to the robots, but which perhaps defines us, and the film. The desire to "dream" gives us so much hope, so much happiness, and so much love, but paradoxically also causes so much misery. We are trapped in this conflict. The subtext of the film-the search to be in "the place where dreams are born", perhaps lies at the crux of human consciousness, and it is that we can be trapped by such a desire "for that which isn't there"... "in a cage", which, paradoxically, causes so much happiness and so much human misery. This is what the robots in the film ultimately desire, but which in the end, in the film, seperates us from computers-artificial intelligence, or paradoxically perhaps, sugests we are ultimately just the same. See it for yourself and decide. The movie is very melancholy and deeper than most people would like. Something to think about.
Rating:
Summary: Much deeper than many here may have you believe
Review: What makes this film so amazing is not the special effects or the gee-wiz imagery, or even the plot line. As with many Kubrick films, they're not really for "entertainment" but to provoke thought. The title of the film, A.I. is the first question that Kubrick asks - is it really possible to create intelligence? If so, then define what intelligence means. Is there more to intelligence than simply logical reasoning? Are emotions somehow part of intelligence? Of course, you the viewer, must answer those questions. And in the end, think about what the aliens are trying to do, and what they say. Or rather, what is Kubrick really saying. Is it that he believes that humanity/intelligence, no matter how sophisticated technology becomes, can ever be duplicated or created? Does the soul have something to do with intelligence? Again, you must answer that within your own definition of intelligence. I can see why so many people disliked A.I. They spent $9 to be entertained, and instead found themselves in a college philosophy class. If you're the type of person that likes to sit back and be entertained, than this movie is probably not worth your time nor money. If you like thought provoking films, than this is a typical Kubrick film, with the warm fuzzy Spielberg throw in for extra measure. There is so much more to this movie than I can write about in 1,000 words. If you've already seen it and hated it, perhaps you'll spend the $5 to rent it and take the time to really understand what the film is saying and asking. It really is an interesting piece of work.
| 
