Rating: 
Summary: Don't waste your time
Review: First of all for those who dismiss people who do not like this film as being unable to understand its themes, let me say I do understand and appreciate what is being presented, but still feel this is a movie which is simply not worth seeing. Kubrick lovers will certainly like this movie, but honestly Kubrick was a voice from the 70s, and this is a different era. What we find in this movie is long drawn out sequences to no where, in which the pain of enduring is never satisfied. I appreciate the questions which are asked, but this movie takes a direction which is simply not helpful to our era. This is not nearly as intellectually stimulating as some may convey, having more the appearance of philosophic thought without necessarily having depth. Thirty years ago, this may have been a more important movie. We have moved on though philosophically in our questions and ability to answer. The story, though promising, descends into utter silliness by the end, and is not at all entertaining, while the philosophy is so dated as to be equally comical. Don't waste your time.
Blade-Runner is a much better choice to engage similar questions., though also flawed.
Rating: 
Summary: Excellent!! One of the best this year!!!
Review: ... ... As it might be a quite a silly movie for many, there is a deeper meaning included throughout the movie. What is it? The question of morality, the question of us humans creating a robot which thinks. It does not pertain to anything of today but it falls directly in the same line of human cloning, and us being able to create life and later destroying it or abandoning it. Also a strange but very real and scary thought of us creating robots which outlive the human race.Anyways, this is an excellent movie, the visual FX are stunning, I especially loved the last 20 minutes of the film, a typical Cubrick feeling but with the Spielberg touch. FAntastic, I would recommend it to anyone who actaully looks for a sense within a movie and thinks while watching one.
Rating:
Summary: The Thinking Man's Spielberg
Review: If you don't want your thinking processes challenged, don't see this movie. While Haley Joel Osment is sure to tug at your heart strings (the acting in this movie is superb), the movie is a dark, haunting examination of one possible future, of science and overweening ambition, family dynamics, societal morals, rejection, child abandonment/neglect and, most importantly, the nature of sentience. Definitely not for children and, just as definitely, one of Spielberg's best. Don't think of this movie as a Pinocchio version -- think of it more along the lines of a dark version of Asimov's "Little Lost Robot".
Rating:
Summary: best movie of the year
Review: For anyone else who takes a shot at this movie, it is only because it is so far over your thinking capacity to enjoy this as a film. This is one of the best movies I have ever seen. When you think of all the imagination and creativity it took Steven Spielberg to make this it really makes you respect him as a director. He made well-rounded characters, phenominal sets and great imagination. The story comes full circle and the acting is superb. I think Jude Law is one of the finest actors in Hollywood today. For everyone who already saw this movie and was disappointed you should watch it again with an open mind. And for everyone who hasn't seen it, you should. Recognize the immense creativity that it took to create this film.
Rating:
Summary: WHAT?
Review: All I can say is that it was completely horrible. What seemed like days in a darkened theater watching a mindless movie actually only turned out to be a few hours. It's exhausting but not in the emotional sense. A fit description of its faults would be wasting time, and for all of the critics out there who want to talk about symbolism... etc. etc. Forget about it... Try interest and plot, those are the key ingredients for an audience to even care... and Spielberg, you bombed this one... I hope your audience forgives you.
Rating:
Summary: A movie so challenging it was doomed to box office failure..
Review: After reading many of the reviews of this film, I am suprised at the number of people who feel the movie is about a robot. Often people seem to bring up the issue of whether or not a robot can love. But the real subject matter of this film isn't technology. It's love. Human love. The movie challenges our archaic and Puritanical aspiration to display Divine Love. It shows that love is very hungry. Love needs. Love seeks love. The theme of the nature of human love is consistently explored throughout the film. First through the relationship of Monica and David. The mother/child relationship is the first expression of human love. At this point, perhaps you're tempted to say, "but he's a robot!!" But David is not a robot. Created by man but the express image of man. Therefore, all David's responses and provocations may be seen as representative of our own reactions and choices. David is us. The movie provides an important context for public discourse on the nature of love. This next part is a spoiler, but I want to leave you with an illustration from the film. Near the end when David discovers his "twin" (rather, discovers himself as that is how David sees it) and literally kills himself, the god-man, the Doctor, in cold selfishness leaves his "creation" to serve his own interests. How often have we treated love in this way? The person we claim to love has just destroyed a piece of themselves. Their security and esteem lie dead on the floor. And we serve our own purposes. But David loved. Love is not always beautiful. Sometimes it is jealous. It's hunger never ends. And when a society refuses to satisfy it's need for love, jealousy begets violence and suffering. Surely David suffered as he sat watching himself dead on the floor. The movie is rich with material of this nature. It is an important film for Americans. It addresses issues we continuously refuse to admit exist. In effect, viewers were so psychologically challenged, felt so uncomfortable, and decided they didn't like the film. Another judgement on the emptiness of American spirit that only finds expression when a madman destroys those we believe are "our own". Reminds me of the old south. The only thing Artificial here is us.
Rating:
Summary: terrible
Review: trivial childish superficial sappy unfocused unending juvenile
amazing it ever got made!
Rating:
Summary: Starts out decent, then drops like a meteor
Review: I walked into "AI" expecting to see something both entertaining and reasonably intelligent, as befits an exploration of such an intriguing topic. For about the first twenty minutes, I wasn't disappointed. The introductory speech (an intro of sorts to the concept of artificial intelligence in general) was fairly decent, and HJO did quite a nice job in the first few minutes of his part; almost human, but just barely missing the mark in a way that is both incredibly creepy and a testament to the talents of the budding actor.
However, that's all the good the movie has to offer. From the "imprint" scene onwards, Spielburg completely splits from Stanley Kubrick's admirable style and spins into a trite, futuristic fairy tale. The plot tries to be unpredictable, but I found myself anticipating every twist at least ten minutes in advance. Plot holes and logical fallacies abound. Sure, there are a few diamonds in all this rough- the teddy bear, for example, or most of the set design- but it's not nearly enough to make up for the disgusting, shamelessly tearful drivel that fills the script.
The film's final half hour or so is worse still. Far from being a logical extension of the story, it feels tacked on, a transparent (and ridiculously improbable) bid to squeeze tears out of an already terminally bored audience. I came close to walking out.
In general, the cyberpunk movies (such as "Blade Runner") of the late eighties and early nineties do a much better job with the material. "AI" is nothing more than a saccharine-coated family film (in the worst sense of the term) grafted onto a starkly imperfect future. It doesn't work. Don't see this movie. Don't rent the video.
Rating:
Summary: A Must See!
Review: This was one of the, if not the very, best movies I have ever seen! A.I. will touch your sences. A movie that you will never regret, or forget seeing. You can feel all the emotions of all the characters. I'm not sure if younger kids would enjoy it, though; because they might not completely understand what's going on. If you haven't seen this movie I would strongly encourage you to go see it. Every part of the movie is greatly put together, and you can see how both directors, and scriptwritters, though completely differant, ideas come together wonderfully; to show you the world, and all aspects of life in a differant view.
Rating: 
Summary: The nature of humanity
Review: The story of a robot boy searching for the mother he was programmed to love. This film raises a fascinating question that we may have to answer for ourselves one day--at what point does a being become deserving of human rights? We faced this question back in the days of slavery and the genocide of Native Americans and did not exactly cover ourselves with glory then. As a society, we have decided that animals do not have rights, although we may lavish them with affection. If we are ever able to create human simulations that also mimic our human responses perfectly, what kind of treatment will they deserve? This is an exceptional film in many respects. The cast, particularly Haley Joel Osment, is excellent, as are the set design and direction. Many people have been disquieted by the combination of Stephen Spielberg's sentiment with Stanley Kubrick's more cerebral approach. I thought they complimented each other rather well. Spielberg sometimes pulls at the heartstrings far too insistently, and I was afraid that the subject matter of this film would lead into his worst excesses. Rather, he was able to smooth the edges of what would probably have been a much colder film if Kubrick had lived to finish it. For example, I'd bet that the character of Teddy was Spielberg's addition. Did Kubrick's vision really need to be softened? Probably not. I'm sure he could have produced a fascinating film from this material. But this is the film that was made. And it is very good.
|
