Rating: 
Summary: Surprisingly original
Review: "A.I." was considered one of the biggest movie disappointments of the last year. This strikes me as slightly odd, since it is a much better movie than "Moulin Rouge," and it even made more money. Moreover, it is a much more beautiful film. But certainly the plot does not sound promising. A robot designed to look like a child, played by an actor one could accuse of being excessively cute, is programmed to love his human "mother". After being heartlessly abandoned by her, he goes through an overly long search and is confronted with many examples of the cruelty of humanity. In the end he briefly meets her and is reconciled with her in an ending my brother and other people thought was sentimental beyond belief. No, this does not sound promising, and since we all know that Spielberg is a fundamentally manipulative and derivative film-maker, surely he could not say something truly thoughtful. Especially since he was working on an idea by Stanley Kubrick, a man infamous for his special style of facile misanthropy.I disagree. First off, there's Joel Haley Osment, whose performance is excellent. Even the most rigorous and unsentimental of critics, the Village Voice's J. Hoberman, who was not enthusiastic about the movie, thought that Osment gave the best leading performance of the last year. And Osment is giving a performance of something that is unique in Spielberg's work. He is playing someone who is NOT human. Most of the literary depiction of robots or aliens fail to truly imagine what that is like. Star Trek is the best (and worst) example of this, since the aliens, or robots like Data or Seven of Nine, end up like humans. Moreover, they end up like very American humans, the world of white suburbia, with American confidence, an American sense of the possibilities of life, with American consumerism, and an American religiosity. Osment, by contrast, is "off," his love may be real, but it is programmed, it is never spontaneous. Given David's lack of humanity, one can therefore imagine why Frances O'Connor would be originally cold to him, why she would warm to him as a substitute for her real son, and why she would eventually break with him when her real son miraculously revived. It has been objected that David is unconvicing in contrast to Gigolo Joe, who is able to convince women to sleep with him. But Gigolo Joe is little more than a congenial sex aid, an evolutionary step up of the chatterbox vending machines on the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, but ultimately no more. David is trying to love someone, something infinitely more difficult. But surely, one might object, it is unfair to portray the humans in this movie as heartless and cruel, since after all in the real world there are no real robots to show their malice towards. And there is no doubt that misanthropy has been a problem in Kubrick's work. "A Clockwork Orange" is a failure because Kubrick so relentlessly stacks the deck in Alex's favor. And the human characters in "2001" are not so much what it is like to be actually dehumanized as empty zombies, facile abstractions of vacuity. But there is another side to it. As Stuart Klawans pointed out, whose film-maker's emotional effects depend on mechanical manipulation than Spielberg himself? If David's love is not convicing, has it ever been so in Spielberg's movies? There is an element of self-criticism in this movie, which is not entirely conscious. As Jonathan Rosenbaum says, this is a movie that is so dialectical it is schizophrenic. Consider the infamous ending. Why should the mechas who find David and momentarily resurrect his mother announce their admiration for humans, consider how we have conducted themselves in the movie? But consider Jim Ridley's words: "To become human, the ending says, is to commit desperately selfish and solipsistic acts, to expect technology to satisfy one's emotional needs, to play God just to preserve the illusion of normalcy." And that, unfortunately, and as Spielberg knows too well, is not facile misanthropy. The reconciliation is sentimental, but it is also unreal, and only temporary.
Rating: 
Summary: Merely artificial
Review: This movie, quite simply, is a poor re-telling of Pinocchio, ruined by Spielburg's inability to leave things alone. There's an obvious break in the story, where it goes from Kubrick to Spielburg, from jagged and interesting, to formulaic and cliche (it occurs once the boy is left in the woods by his mother). Instead of something truly thought provoking, we're left with a visually stunning (except for the ending that was tacked on), yet utterly hollow film, one that anyone that's ever taken an introductory philosophy or film class could make.
Rating: 
Summary: "Flawed, Albeit Fascinating."
Review: An ambitous, stirring project from Steven Speilberg, taking the helm after Stanley Kubrick's death. This film is really a mixed bag, visually impressive and captivating. Yet Kubrick's dark natured settings often clash with Speilberg's light-hearted tones. The film never finds a foot-hold, and sometimes gets a bit soapy, especially toward the end. Excellent performances from all, this is a flawed, albeit fascinating story, that could have been much, much more.
Rating:
Summary: Love or Hate? How about just plain BORED?
Review: I knew I was in trouble the instant I saw the futuristic cars with the neon lights running up the sides. And then the floating moon thing hunting robots. Huh? Was there some deep dark symbolism there that I need to consult the ghost of Freud about? Ok, Pinochio story, retold with a robot as the child. Sounds plausible. But how to get around the Blue Fairy thing (this is, after all, science)? I can imagine Spielberg at the story conference . . . "I know! Let's get ALIENS in there, bring back the mother, who will, of course, remember just about everything even though she's been dead for 2000 years because of some convenient flaw in the space time continuum . . . blah, blah, blah." The sad thing is that I was looking forwared to this movie, having seen theatrical trailers. I should have stopped there. Everything good about this movie was contained in the preview. The rest is just . . . I'm so uninterested in this film that I'm not even going to complete this sente
Rating:
Summary: This is the most boring movie in the World
Review: I thought after 30 minutes or so the movie would pick up...It didn't. In fact, it drags on and on with scene after scene of pointlessness. Just when you think a plot is starting to develop, off you go to another meaningless scene. I expected it to be delightful, immersive, and futuristic. But, you spend about 90% of the movie in depressing scenery...Eveything in the movie takes place at night or in the dark. Heck, I felt depressed and sick to my stomach after watching it. And it's too bad that the movie is so boring that you have no chance to appreciate the special effects. I just have one question..."what was the point???".
Rating:
Summary: The Movie and the DVD are Junk.
Review: The movie was a big question mark when it was released. Osmett was terribily cast as a robot boy who comes across as fake. The story was largely written by Kubrick, and thus should have been given to Tim Burton who would have made the movie as dark a story as it was originally ment to be. Steven's light-hearted approach to Kubrick's story did not work, and the DVD has so many bonus features on how this movie was made. It does not take away the fact that it was a bad movie period. No more.
Rating:
Summary: Flawed, but ultimately compelling.
Review: I didn't see this in the movie theaters, and waited a long time before finally seeing it on DVD. My own feelings is that it is well worth watching, and watching again for the fine acting turns by Haley Joel Osment and Jude Law, as well as the deeply felt emotional questions it requires the viewer to ask of themselves. For me the film is chiefly about the quest for love, and how much humans invest themselves emotionally in non-living things. It poses a fascinating question: What if the things we love could love us back? What kind of responsiblity then would we owe them? Not a very likely scenario granted, but an interesting one to ponder while watching this slowly-unfolding film. Major flaws which mar this otherwise admirable production: the confusing design of the future robots at the end of the film, which would lead many to believe that they are alien creatures, rather than Mechas; the numerous plot holes which seem to infest the storyline thoughout; and the always-glacial acting of William Hurt (why is this man still working?) who detracts whenever he is on screen. But I enjoyed this movie -- I enjoyed the leisurely pace which allowed me to think while I was watching, I felt it had a powerful emotional core, despite what other reviewers have said about it being cold and distant. I enjoyed the production values, and again the wonderful acting by the lead characters. I think that this will be a film that is worthy of discussion for years to come, and how many popular films can you really say that about?
Rating: 
Summary: Great Film!!! A Masterpiece Love It Or Hate It
Review: This is a film you will either love or hate. I "GOT" this movie. I may be one of the only few who did. I love this films theme and direction its unapreciated and ahead of its time. Just like Hitchcocks Virtago was in its time. Give it 20 or 30 years and it will catch on! I cared for the robot boy and what becomes of him on his journey just as I did for R2-D2 and C-3PO in Star Wars or the toys in Toy Story. I mean sure they aren't real but still I identify with them and feel for them. This is a masterpiece that is ahead of its time and didnt find its audience. If this film was made for just me and the handful of people who "got" it then so be it.
Rating:
Summary: Great Movie + Great DVD = Cool
Review: This is a brilliant film, that goes on my list of the best films of the year (which also include "Moulin Rouge" "Monsters, Inc." and "Lord of the Rings" in case anyone cares). The symbolism of everything in there (Dr. Know-we are only supposed to know what we are told to, just as he was programmed), not to mention the best retelling of Pinnochio ever makes this just so cool. The special features are great as well. All the revealing info about the movie and how it was made is so cool. Now, if only Speilber wouldn't be as afraid to make commentaries of his films...
Rating:
Summary: Unfairly Dismissed
Review: Now I realize that this film is not going to be to everyone's taste. I suppose that it will fall under the category of Cult Film, yet in my opinion, 'A.I. - Artificial Intelligence' is one of the greatest science fiction films of the last ten years. In time it may very well be placed within the top twenty greatest Science Fiction films ever. If you want something that is thoughtful, imaginative, daring and unique for a film. This film is a MUST SEE! It's a shame that the public wasn't very receptive to this film last Summer, because they missed out on one of the better one's from 2001. Why?
For a great many reasons. I won't go into more discussion over the fact that 'A.I.' was the posthumous collaboration between Spielberg and Kubrick. A lot of space has already been written that covers that fact. Many complained about the ending and the disjointed structure of 'A.I.', yet if you give the film a chance and pay attention from the first frame, the film does tie together and make sense.
It's Ironic, since many have complained about the disjointed structure of '2001:A Space Odyssey'. Frankly, the ending is one of the things that make it so strong. The film itself ties in well with Kubrick's sensibility of 'Mode Shifting', in this respect 'A.I.' is similar to '2001'. The film's look at the mysticism of Fairy Tales is something that Kubrick must have wanted to address. 'A.I.' is a parable about many issues, from Parenthood and Paternal instincts, to Religion, to hatred of people or things we don't understand, to ecological issues. Above all, 'A.I.' is about the simplest of all things, it's message, it's warning is be very careful, take care of the families that you create. It does have a challenging undercurrent of ideas, moments that are disturbing throughout. From the Flesh Fair sequence, to Rouge City, to the underwater New York skyline and the Excavation site ending. Jude Law and Francis O'Connor do a wonderful job, yet it's Haley Joel Osment who carries this film with an Amazing performance. I have been a fan of his since 'The Sixth Sense' yet he outdoes himself in the role of David. The rest of the cast fills out the film nicely, William Hurt, Sam Robards, Brendan Gleason, Jake Thomas, as well as voiceover cameos by Robin Williams, Meryl Streep, Ben Kingsley, and Chris Rock. Technically the film is nearly flawless, with a great production design, Januez Kaminsky's cinemaphotography, some great robot designs by Stan Winston, including Teddy. The visual effects by I.L.M. are seamless and probably some of the best work by George Lucas's company in awhile. No offense to Star Wars fans, but the effects in 'Phantom Menace' pales in comparison to 'A.I.'. John William's score is one of the highlights of the film and one of his best since 'Close Encounters'. The film's ambition is something that isn't seen enough, it isn't much of a surprise that it had such a polarizing reaction with the viewing public last summer. The film was Kubrick's concept, with Spielberg as it's interpreter. After all, most of Stanley Kubrick's film's polarized the public upon their first theatrical release. Many still don't understand '2001:A Space Odyssey'. I should mention the DVD does a great job with the layout and progression of the documentary features. My only mild complaint is the omission of a director commentary. Can anyone really say that last summer's remake of 'Planet Of The Apes' will be something that will still be talked about, remembered and seen, twenty years from now?
Can anyone really say that this year's Oscar nominee 'A Beautiful Mind' will be remembered in twenty years? (No offense intended to 'Apes' fans or fans of Ron Howard's film.) I'm not really sure about that, Perhaps, Perhaps not. Yet I think 'A.I.' will only grow in statue over time. That it will age better over time than its contemporaries. Much in the same way that Terry Gilliam's 'Brazil' or Ridley Scotts 'Blade Runner' are now seen in a very different light. 'A.I.' is better with each successive viewing, get this film! Sorry if this sounds like a press kit junket, but that's how I feel.
|
