Rating: 
Summary: Is there a -5 star?
Review: This movie was terrible! Some will argue that the movie was inspiring and needed to be looked at "below the surface." But the bottom line is it is a bad story. The acting/music/production are good, but it is just plain a poorly told story. The movie introduces characters too late in the film to get to know them and leaves too much unexplained. Character/relationship development is very poor. Do not pay to see this movie. Don't even rent it.
Rating:
Summary: THE MOST OVERRATED MOVIE OF 2001!!!...
Review: This movie was the most overrated movie of 2001. It was absolutely horrible. There was no point to the movie. The only good thing about it was the amazing special effects. I can not believe it is even in theaters. ...
Rating:
Summary: Zero Stars Please
Review: WowI cannot believe anyone would give this 5 stars! Are you kidding me? It rates a first and only zero from myself and many of the others who saw it with me. I can sit through almost any Sc-Fi type story but this one taxed my endurance to the limits! Real sleeper. Literally this could put almost anyone to sleep. If Spielberg was shooting for a cure to insomnia he's dead on, otherwise a complete failure. Check out ... reviews, max of 2 1/2 stars, and that with an ... that has literally posted 100's of replicant 5 star entries (...), other wise it would have a 1-2 star rating, dont buy into the hype, this is terrible, critics who liked this must have been stoned or paid off. The after movie dinner table talk consisted entirely of how bad the movie was and what a suitable punishment for Spielberg would be for creating this ... and actually accepting money for it. No wonder he didn't hang around and sit through the hollywood preview, shame on Holywood, shame on Spielberg. The characters were so wooden and unrealistic, and Im not talking about just the supposed mecha's. The Characters were so 2 dimensional that if they turned sideways they would have vanished. The only likeable character was 'Teddy' and he was a stuffed doll! The story, if you could call it that was so slow, disjointed and so pointless that you kept hoping something would happen to tie it all together, not believing it could get any worse, but it did, plodding scene after scene after scene... The greenpeace'ish liberal stuff was so overdone that it detracted from the whole movie, nothing subtle deep or hidden in this piece. Cinematography was just weird. Shades of 2001 and Waterworld, odd angles, dark shots mixed at the end with glowing over the top luminence (ala 2001) some will say the shooting was interesting, but it had no real effect other than being disjointed like the rest of the story. Special effects were ok but nothing very interesting until the end. Even then it was classic Spielberg, wonderful loving aliens blah blah blah... Jeez, if I were the aliens I could think of better things to do with my time, obviously Speilberg paid them off too...
Rating: 
Summary: A. I.
Review: There are some interesting ideas and images in this movie, but Spielberg is not really able to successfully merge (except maybe in the last scene) Kubrick's original antihumanistic concept with Spielberg's own habitual championing of America middle-class values. As a result, it's a little too dark to be a kids' movie, and a little too suburban fairy tale to be a movie for adults. The result is an overly-long, over-budget hodge-podge. Think 2001 meets E.T.
Rating: 
Summary: Brilliant! A.I. is really ABOUT something...
Review: Steven Spielberg's A.I. is that cinematic rarity - a film that is really and truly about its subject matter. The trend in science fiction lately (especially on television) has been present half-baked "character studies" (read: soap opera) in an environment of hardware and technobabble. But serious science fiction - REAL science fiction - has always been more about big ideas, philosophy, and the meaning of life. Enter A.I., a film nurtured for a decade and a half by one of the greatest minds in film-making, the late Stanley Kubrick, and now finally realized by the inestimable cinematic wizardry of Steven Spielberg. And when I speak of his cinematic wizardry, I refer not to the special-effects of Industrial Light and Magic (which are, in fact, extraordinary), but to the skilled visual story-telling of a master craftsman. For example, there is a pivotal scene where David - an artificially intelligent robotic child - is seeking protection from a snotty kid with a knife who wants to "test" his Danger Avoidance System (the robotic equivalent of pain). "Afraid" of injury, David latches on to his human "brother" tightly, and accidentally pulls him into the deep end of the family swimming pool. After a few frantic moments, the nearly drowned brother is pulled out. The humans at the party never consider David. As far as they are concerned, he's just a now-dangerously malfunctioning machine, no more important than a broken toaster. He lays at the bottom of the pool, isolated in the rippling water as we look down on him from above. Watching that scene, I realized what a perfect visual metaphor that was for a sense of utter social isolation. The story concerns the adventures of a modern Pinocchio - a young robotic boy designed from the outset to love his adoptive "parents" through the same kind of imprinting that animals experience. As in most fairy-tales, the pure-hearted but misunderstood robotic hero is abandoned and left stranded in the woods to fend for himself. What follows is a series of adventures as he tries to find the mythical blue fairy who can grant his wish to become a real boy. The robots, or "mechas" in this film, are disarmingly naïve, and tend to take human mythology at face-value. They actually believe in blue fairies that grant wishes. But this isn't kid's stuff, and, in spite of Mr. Spielberg's imprimatur, it is not a simple-minded "heartwarming" journey in the Disney tradition. It is a rich, haunting tapestry of tough questions and elusive answers. What does it mean to love? To be human? To be intelligent? Are we, in fact, just complex machines like our hero? Is David's quest for acceptance, in some measure, like our own? Kubrick's themes of urban dystopia and dehumanization (exemplified in the Blade Runner-esque Rouge City sequence) penetrate through Spielberg's more humanitarian vision like a dark counter-melody in a great fugue. That Spielberg allowed this in what has become HIS film is a great measure of the trust and respect he obviously has for the late master. The performances are all spot-on, including those of William Hurt as David's inventor, Jude Law as his protector (a lady-killer "love-mecha" named Gigolo Joe), and especially Frances O'Conner as his adoptive mother, whose on-screen presence and vulnerability eerily recall a young Susan Strasberg. But the ultimate kudos go to Haley Joel Osment as the robotic boy David. He has all the technique and refinement of an actor with three times his age and four times his experience. Watch for the scene where he "imprints" on his mother; the subtle way he telegraphs going from an intelligent but essentially mindless automaton to a conscious, feeling entity. We can SEE the transition, and it's amazing to behold. What ultimately results from this fusion of Stanley Kubrick's icy misanthropy and Steven Spielberg's warm humanism is not a lumpy, queasy mishmash like many (including I) had feared, but an intensely moving and authentic hero's journey. Without diminishing the achievements of Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan, I believe this is Steven Spielberg's finest hour.
Rating:
Summary: Heart-Wrenching, Soul-Stirring; "A.I." Serves Up Epic Ideas.
Review: Can we care about a robot boy who desperately tries, in a seemingly futile attempt, to be human? In this reviewer's case, the answer is "Yes." Haley Joel Osment, the new boy-wonder of the acting trade, is both cute and haunting as we watch him search for the key to his mechanical hopes. Osment plays David, the first "mecha," or mechanical entity, built to love unconditionally. He goes on an unexpected search for the key to his hopes and desires which takes him into the throes of danger. Along the way, David meets Gigolo Joe, played by Jude Law. Joe is a "love mecha," a sex machine programmed to please women in a multiplicity of ways. David and Joe embark on a quest for David's happiness, and it takes them through some of the most unique environments put to film. There is a bizarre "anti-mecha" stage show in the film that communicates the kind of arrogance humans feel for their own kind. Later on, we see Rouge City, a cross between Times Square of today, and Times Square of 30 years ago rolled into one. Then, the film takes such a radical turn that spoiling it here would do you a great disservice. Needless to say, with the combined talents of Spielberg and Kubrick, "A.I." is a masterpiece of cinema, and a triumph of creative artistry. Stanley Kubrick had been trying to get this film made for a few decades. He had actually been waiting for the day when special effects technology advanced to the point where "A.I." could be filmed realistically and affordably. Unfortunately, time ran out for Stanley, as he passed away the year his final film, "Eyes Wide Shut" was released in theaters. However, in a rare show of directorial solidarity, long-time colleague and admirer, Steven Spielberg, took it upon himself to film his friend's magnum opus posthumously. What results is a film that neither of the filmmakers could have done alone. Kubrick's films often deal with a gritty and ugly reality, as well as exploring the more baser instincts of the human animal. Spielberg's films often reflect the optimistic nature of humanity, and the presence of "hope" is a frequent theme in many of Steven's films. Though this is a Steven Spielberg film, Kubrick is still ever-present. For example, the character "Gigolo Joe" seems not to be a Spielbergian influence at all. "David" is more like Steven's vision, as he is very much like Elliot in the film "E.T." It was revealed that Kubrick had wanted Spielberg to direct this film many years ago, but that Steven refused, saying that it was a project too personal for anyone other than Stanley to complete. However, with Kubrick gone from this plain of existence, there is not another soul on the planet that knew enough about Stanley's vision than Steven Spielberg. And I am pleased to say the collaboration is a magical one.
Rating: 
Summary: A spectacular failure
Review: Kubrick's icy cold intellect and Spielberg's cheery sentimentality play tug-of-war in this Pinocchio tale of a robot boy who just wants to be made human. For the first two acts, it works tremendously. Hefty emotions drive the mother/robot child relationship, and nice effects imagine a stunning future world in which the polar icecaps have melted. But all that comes to a screeching halt in the inexplicable third act that feels as if someone stopped the projector and started a completely different movie. You get the feeling that Spielberg had no idea how to end this fascinating material that Kubrick handed him.
Rating:
Summary: Overlong, Predictable and Nothing Really New
Review: This is the latest long movie that somehow escaped the editing room. The story actually moves along at a decent pace, but the last 30 minutes of the movie is dragged out with Haley Joel Osment pursuing a goal which I couldn't have cared less about. Not to mention the fact that a narrator steps in during this last half hour to start explaining things to the audience which, I guess Hollywood believes, can't figure things out for themselves. The movies raises some good philosophical and ethical questions about Artificial Intelligence and mankind in general, but deals with it in a bleak and unimaginative way. Lots of computer-generated effects here, but nothing we haven't seen before.
Rating:
Summary: AI - A wasted experience
Review: My wife and I were looking forward to this movie for several weeks and with its positive early reviews, we went on opening day. To say we were disappointed is an understatement. It has been a while since I have been at a movie where 20% of the sold out crowd left before the end and the unanimous grown of the crowd at the end really defines how bad this movie is. Some of the scenes were creative and the robot bear was cute, but a poor story line, slow pace and bad acting made for an unpleasent experience. Spielberg is a great director and most of his movies I have really enjoyed. Unfortunately this movie missed its mark. I guess even great directors have flops. I am shocked by the positive reviews on this and other web sites because most people I have talked to about this movie have also been extremely dissappointed. If I could give a movie a negative star, this movie would receive two.
Rating:
Summary: Unsubtle reuse of old ideas
Review: If you're looking for more than the usual Hollywood nonsense, you won't find it in this movie. I walked into the theatre convinced that there had to be at least something original and intelligent about a film with a plot so carefully kept a secret and advertised in a manner that suggested novelty. Alas, I was wrong. It's true that first the first third of the movie things aren't so bad, due undoubtedly to Kubrick's contribution to the screenplay. From then on, however, the film turns into a ridiculously naive mixed-bag of trite sci-fi and cheap philosophy. Perhaps the most annoying part was seeing such a promising and original screenplay as Kubrick's original work most likely was, turned into the flat unidimensionality of Spielberg's perception of the world. Inevitably, the characters reflect this unfortunate transformation: the acting is inconsistent because the script is, and all this is such a pity as Haley Joel Osment's talent goes to waste. For Disney fans and 10-year olds, Spielberg's latest work is almost a masterpiece. For middlebrow adults who might expect more from modern-day Hollywood cinematography, this is surely a failure.
| 
