Rating: 
Summary: Pretty good movie, but not what I was expecting.
Review: I liked very much this movie and I have purchased it, but it is not what I was expecting. I was expecting a little more from this movie, but this should be a very enjoyable and interesting movie to watch and I recommend buying it.
Rating: 
Summary: Spielberg, secure in his success
Review: feels confident enough that he seemingly doesn't care about alienating Catholic movie goers or parents who actually try to shield their children from the seemier side of life.
Since this movie is loosely based on Pinnochio, Jimminy Cricket ("Joe") is a robo-prostitute and becomes Haley Joel Osmand (Pinnochio)companion. Because of "Joes" profession, the viewer is subjected to graphic sexual talk that is not needed in the movie (Why does Joe have to be a prostitute of all things?) and children should not be exposed to. "Rouge City" was such an embarassment with it's sexual businesses and buildings , that it was here that I finally gave up and sent my children permanently out of the room. Previously, I had sent them out during "Joe's business."
Just as well since as Catholic's, my children (and any one actually) didn't need to see the Virgin Mary made fun of with a church called "Our Lady's Immaculate Heart" and didn't need to hear about how people inside grovel, and how after they exit the chapel they become Joe's best clients.
Spielberg isn't just anti-Catholic though, he uses the vehicle of this pedantic movie to make fun of the pro-life movement by calling "The Flesh Fair", a horific spectacle that harkens back to the Roman Colliseum's blood sports, "Pro - Life." The camera stays on this sign long enough that any viewer with brain cells would realize that a point was being made.
I gave this movie one star, not because it deserves it, but because the Amazon rating system doesn't allow negative star ratings.
What a shame. Anyone who has seen Spielberg's earlier films knows he could have done better. Too bad he has an agenda to push now.
Rating: 
Summary: Aggravation and Half-Baked Details
Review: The fatal flaw of this film is in the fact that its premises are only partially thought-out...and this is bad news, especially when you're dealing with a "thought-provoking" movie.Um...if scientists were smart enough to program "love" into a robot, wouldn't they also be smart enough to omit depression? That seems logical. And surely somebody would have the foresight to give robots some sort of "shelf-life," so that they wouldn't just fumble around moping and sad for the rest of eternity... Also, if you were a parent looking to buy a robot to replace your own son, wouldn't you WAIT to see whether your own kid was going to pull through or not?!? That was silly. And don't you think that the instruction manual would say something about your robot boy's eating habits?
"Does he eat?"
"I dunno..."
Hmmm...and it certainly seems strange to me that the scientists would have built a swallowing mechanism into a robot that wasn't supposed to eat... Here's another one: wouldn't robots be given some sort of outer sign to differentiate them from "real people," ESPECIALLY if one of our favorite pasttimes was blowing them up?!?!? Nobody seemed too concerned when an apparently real boy was spotted in the cannon-fodder cage at Lollapalooza... Furthermore, if the robot-boy's creator wanted him to know how to find him, why didn't he just e-mail him directions or something?!? Instead we get the cryptic riddle arbitrarily placed in Dr. Know...something about "Weeping tigers at the end of the world." There were lots and lots of cognitive irritants in the move like these that I've mentioned--some more grating than others. I liked the look of the film, and the atmosphere was very Kubrick, but the hole's in the plot were inescapable.
Rating: 
Summary: Are we really that civilized?
Review: First of, David (the kid from 6th sense) acting was superb. I could have sworn he was a real robot in the beginning. The story is unmatched but very gloomy. I guess thats why the whole setting is fixated in the future where everything is simplified and possible. However, love is still untainable even if artifically created. The conflict begins when the catalyst is introduce - which is jealousy. I will not destroy the story as everyone wrote practically the whole story. In essence, as vague as this rating is, is that love is a force which not even humans can control. Robots are programmed and so can we. The possibities of creating an artificial intelligence is endless. This story provokes fear and thought. The concept of an inanimated object to love so unconditionally is so heartbreaking. After I saw this movie - all I can think of is how cruel we can be. I guess acceptance is something we must rely on to control the fear of love. Watch this movie with a box of tissues because you will drown as it progress.
Rating:
Summary: Hands down the worst movie of 2001
Review: But what about Freddy Got Fingered? NO! This is the worst movie of 2001. Why you ask? When you set high expectations (early Oscar buzz) about a film and it is so poorly made, so trite, simple, and utterly excruciating to watch, it must not just be set aside as a movie I didn't enjoy, but panned as no movie has ever been panned before. The watchable and interesting components of this film come in the middle, but they are so clouded by the hyper-exposition ala Bi-Centennial Man (another utterly forgettable robot movie that went on way too long) and the most ridiculous ending of a movie that I've ever had the displeasure of watching, that you forget the important social commentary attempts. The praise for this movie has been driven mostly by this component. While there is the beginnings of an interesting social critique, the plotlines and characters (Jude Law) with the most potential don't get enough screen time to save this movie. Just because something is original or never-been-done before, doesn't make it art, or quality picture making, even if the Speilberg name is attached to it. If you're looking to fulfill your artistic movie quotient for 2001, skip this two and a half hour waste of time and rent a good, innovative (and the best and most underappreciated movie of 2001) film in Memento...
Rating:
Summary: uneven, but many remarkable scenes, plus haley joel osment
Review: This movie is less than the sum of its parts, but even though it is problematic, it still rewards the viewer's attention. The Pinnochio theme is obvious from the outset, but so is the cinematic debt the film and its makers owe to Blade Runner. Like Blade Runner, A.I. deals with the interaction between human and android (sorry, replicant) and the humanism and ethics, or lack thereof, that apply to such relationships. Haley Joel Osment is a marvel in the role of David, the mechanical prototype boy who is "adopted" by a couple whose only child lies in an apparently irredeemable coma. The odyssey of this family, and of David, in a future society that is breaking down and rebuilding itself right and left, continues until the last moment. Osment is the linchpin of A.I. This child is amazingly talented and can lift up virtually any material on his little shoulders. If George Lucas had hired him to play the young Anakin Skywalker, Star Wars: The Phantom Menace would have had some depth. Osment's performance in one gut-wrenching scene is so true it's literally painful to watch; expect to need more Kleenex long after the scene is over. The film is hindered by some standard sticking points, among them sci-fi economics (in which the world is mostly destroyed -- and yet people live in huge, architecturally unique houses with nice landscaping; certain common products, such as perfume, become incredibly precious because they cannot be replaced -- and yet people seem to be quite wasteful of many resources), a broken-backed format in which new characters are suddenly introduced and the others virtually forgotten, and a kind of nervous breakdown (and bizarre deus ex machina) in the last reel in which A.I. sort of becomes a different film entirely. The latter structural problem is no doubt due to the untimely death of Stanley Kubrick, who had handed the project over to Steven Spielberg. Kubrick's influence is seen through most of the film, until, toward the end, Spielberg pours on his (arguably worst) influence 110%. The special effects are outstanding, but it is Haley Joel Osment who makes this film worth the time and money.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting in parts, but ultimately unsatisfactory
Review: AI I found to be a strangely depressing film, which attempts to graft on a happy ending to something that is manifestly not happy at all. This is the story of an android created to love who is thrown out by his human "mother" and thereafter seeks to refind the love he has lost by both refinding his mother and by becoming a real boy, so as to be worthy of her love. The film started off well and at the beginning at least was intriguing. The effects and the look of the film are excellent and it has very high production values. The end is bizarre and I think unbelievable. However, I can see why it is there: without it, this film would be a painfully depressing experience to watch. However, the rather ridiculous ending does not work and you still feel that the film is unremittingly sad. I am slightly amused by people suggesting that all the good bits of the film are Kubrick's and the bad bits of the film are Spielberg's - is there actually any evidence that this is the case? I think this film in Kubrick's hands could not have been much different. Kubrick did some great films - but not all of them are classics. Maybe Kubrick himself thought the film ultimately would be unsatisfactory? This is a vision of the future where technology has been a "success", even if society is not. The energy problem has been solved and the people who are around have marvelous things if they are favored. In this sense the film is really not new and is akin to Bladerunner, Alien, Star Wars and all the rest. Curiously unsatisfactory, and I think one can understand precisely why it flopped - the film's gloomy story, with its strange "let out" ending dooms it from long term acceptance as a great, or even a good film.
Rating:
Summary: Spielberg's Best
Review: For me, this is , without a doubt, Mr. Spielberg's
most accomplished film since Jaws. In terms of
substance and emotional intensity, A.I. does indeed
surpass his admittedly entertaining debut. Many of
his films since Jaws have struck me as very
heavy-handed. Here, his technical proficiency is at
last matched by content.It is a unique, thought-provoking film that is very engaging while at the same time slightly disturbing. He has even managed to
imbue the film with an interesting Kubrick flavor, and I think Mr. Kubrick would have been pleased with the finished product. The Williams score adds quite a bit, as usual, and the acting is first rate. Master Osment is perfect,
and Jude Law is, I think, actually a machine. A
must-see, unforgettable film. The DVD is superlative.
Check it out.
Rating: 
Summary: A Big Miss
Review: I gave this movie every chance I could. I wanted to like it. I heard bad stuff from friends. I missed it in the theater. I rented it tonight (on DVD). As I watched the movie, I wanted to like it. It had interesting concepts in it, and they were intersperesed between 2.5 hours.... a total of maybe 20 interesting minutes in this mess of a movie. All casual and serious movier-goers beware.... Those who critically watch a movie will be insulted as well as those who casually (passively) watch a movie alike. This is a movie with no emotion, no plot, no direction (sorry Spielberg), no satisfaction, and a horrrible ending. Sorry, this was the worst of Speilberg, unless I missed a few worse (like "Hook"). It had no focus, and while I enjoyed parts of it, and up until a point I liked the subject of the movie, it was a complete disapointment. It takes a turn for a worst in the last half-hour. Rent with extreme caution. I rented it against every well-meaning friends reccommendation and ending up agreeing with them.... that never happens. I gave this movie 2 stars for the few interesting concepts introduced and because the DVD is well-produced if you liked the movie (however, lacking in trailers and teasers). I wrote this review, and I don't EVER write reviews, and if I did, they would be praise.... the reason I came here is to seriously warn against people wasting to 2.5 hours of their lives.
Rating:
Summary: Disappointed
Review: I would have given this movie three stars if Spielberg and Kubrick had not been involved in it. However, the fact that they were make this movie a much larger disappointment. Yes, it has some good visual effects, but the plot is weak, unentertaining (i.e. boring) and much longer than necessary. Just when you think the movie is finally over, there comes another subplot, more intolerable than the previous one.
|
