Rating: 
Summary: Most Underrated Movie of 2001
Review: When I first heard of A.I. Artificial Intelligence early last year, I thought that perhaps Spielberg is making a quasi-sequal to E.T. Later I heard of Pinocchio theme within the movie, then I thought that Spielberg is making a live-action version of Pinocchio. I didn't see it in the theater, with less than spectacular box office receipts...Then I saw the DVD.... I was so wrong about the movie in every single aspect. This is not E.T.. This is certainly not a live-action version of Pinocchio (although Pinocchio motif is used very heavily), and above all, this is not a ho-hum movie. It is a true masterpiece, and you owe yourself to at least rent this one to view it without any prejudices that you may have of the movie. Many of you will end up buying this one.
Rating: 
Summary: A.I. = Awfully Idiotic. Lacking. Boring. Pointless. Dumb.
Review: Absolutely the worst movie in a long time. A.I. is awful.
The plot is thin.
The special effects are there just because Spielberg was the producer, and they are mostly pointless. Lots of loose ends, very slow moving. A true waste of time. A.I. = Awfully Idiotic. Spend your money on The Matrix, or Dogma.
Rating: 
Summary: Come Away, O Human Child...
Review: I think this is a great movie, crippled by serious flaws. There are some very powerful moments here that few films can touch; the existential crisis of a robot child coupled with Yeats' poetry is staggering. The problem is that the three acts are disjoint, almost to the point of making the film episodic; the first act is stretched out, the second is cramped, and the third is just plain pointless. Call me a pessimist, but I find that stopping the disc after David finds the Blue Fairy greatly improves the film. The thought of a (mecha) child trapped forever in his dreams seems much more poetic than the final leap into the "Close Encounters" type ending (yes, I know they are robots of the future). Aside from these issues, I really enjoyed the movie. It is wildly inventive and well acted. Jude Law particularly shines as Harlequin, I mean Gigolo Joe, and young Mr. Osment is fantastic to watch as he brings life to David. I can only imagine how difficult it is to act in parts like these, and both these guys do a great job.
Rating: 
Summary: an inexcusable disaster
Review: Forget that the desire to be loved and to feel "real" is a universal emotion, but Kubrick/Spielberg give no reason why these feelings should have any special meaning when applied to a robot. Forget that "The Velveteen Rabbit" does a better job -- in just a few pages -- of exploring these themes. The fact is that the first two hours of this film are absolutely magical -- but the "aliens ex machina" ending is an arbitrary, pointless, tacked-on (non-)resolution that has no dramatic or philosophical connection with what came before. For those interested, here's the letter I sent to Steven Spielberg. I saw AI at its premiere. As an only child raised by incompetent parents - a goofy, wise-cracking, ineffective father, and a self-centered mother who actively disliked me - I found parts of AI extremely disturbing. Had I been alone in the theater, I probably would have broken down and had to have been helped out. But although AI provoked a legitimate emotional reaction, it still has problems. Attempting to get a handle on my feelings about AI, I browsed the Jerome Agel book on 2001. (I was born May 14, 1947, exactly one year after George Lucas, and saw 2001 during its first New York run.) Much was made of 2001's "disruption" of the conventional narrative flow of film. But 2001 is a conventional narrative film. It has a plot - an extraterrestrial intelligence is interested the development of humans and desirous of promoting their evolution. It influences proto-man's evolution sufficiently to prevent his extinction. Then, when it is able to obtain a specimen (who's proved his worthiness by ascending from hell through his own efforts), it transforms him to a higher life form. There's no need to "force" an ending to the story, because the end is implied by the concept. AI has no inherent plot. It is a study of basic life questions: What is love? What does it mean to love and be loved? Does human love have any real value, or is it just a self-serving reaction to the way others treat us? There's nothing wrong with a book or movie that asks questions without answering them. Up to the point where David finds the Blue Fairy, AI does an exceptionally fine job of exploring these questions. The film might very well have ended here, albeit on a dark note. Joe's remark about the Blue Fairy being the embodiment of the human failing of wanting unobtainable things was good preparation for such an ending. But AI isn't an intellectual discussion - it's a story, and we like stories to have plausible resolutions. In good drama, this resolution grows out of personality and character. Unfortunately, AI's alien ex machina resolution is arbitrary. It doesn't evolve out of what came before, but (like Teddy stitching himself) is merely a way to patch up the holes. The tedious and unconvincing explanation of the persistence of an individual life-force and its brief attachment to the regenerated body (which seems to be swiped from Philip José Farmer) not only brings the film to a dead stop, but is an obviously clumsy attempt to force the story in the direction the writer wants it to go, not where it "should" go (wherever that might be). This might not be bad if there were some ambiguity or even unhappiness to the ending. But David appears to get what he wants (his mother saying she's always loved him), and is happy with it. Do you believe that nothing else is required to fulfill our lives than our mommy telling us she loves us? AI's resolution is neither logically, dramatically, nor emotionally satisfying. It undercuts what preceded it, and looks too much like a Spielbergian "happy ending." There's another philosophical point AI neglects to explore. If you've read A Clockwork Orange, you're aware of the scene Stanley Kubrick omitted, because it would have undercut his conscious perversion of the book. Alex's Nietszchian point of view is that he has the right to steal, rape, and murder, because (unlike the sheeplike mass of society) he chooses (wills) to do these things. When robbing the house of a college professor, Alex finds an essay titled "A Clockwork Orange." Said fruit is something that looks "real" on the outside, but is internally nothing but mechanism. This cuts right to the heart of the question of whether there really is such a thing as free will, and Alex tears up the paper in a fit of rage. Ditto for David. Is he or isn't he a clockwork orange? The film's tag line - "His love is real, but he isn't" - is clearly self-contradictory. How can an "unreal" being have "real" emotions? Programming a robot to express "real" love implies that the human mind contains (or embodies ) a mechanism for love that can be duplicated through some combination of hardware and software. So doesn't that make David's ability to express "real" love proof that human love is merely the mechanical operation of a neural mechanism, and that humans aren't truly "real," but merely "clockwork oranges"? The belief that the human mind is nothing more than the electro-chemical workings of the brain is a "given" of science fiction. These workings can be analyzed and the observed patterns transferred to a machine (or vice versa). Truly advanced aliens would have the power to transfer David's mind into a biological entity, thus making him "real." Moving the story in that direction might not have been any more satisfying, but it would have made more sense. AI has an obvious relation to The Velveteen Rabbit. When the horse explains to the rabbit that, once you are loved, you become real, the author isn't talking about toys - she's reflecting on the human condition. Don't we all long to have our existence and purpose justified by being told that someone truly needs us? David's problem is one that all human beings share. What is the point of showing it from a robot's point of view, and why should his experience have meaning for a human viewer? Alas, the film doesn't say. PS: My AIBO's name is Mr. Peabody. What did you name yours?
Rating:
Summary: Worst Movie Ever - Avoid It - Wish I Had Been Warned
Review: This movie was audio/visually stunning. Unfortunately I didn't follow my instincts and turn it off after 30 minutes... the film should have been named "Abuse of A.I. Children and the Failure of Humanity." I'd compare it to someone who hates porn, and is suddenly faced with a well made porn film, and then throw in children, and a couple close relatives... very disturbing. I highly recommend avoiding the film!
Rating:
Summary: Spielberg contacts Kubrick from beyond...
Review: ...to create a beautiful, horrific vision of the future in 'A.I. Artifical Intelligence.' From the impeccable, letter-perfect opening and closing narrations by Ben Kingsley to the plasticine sexiness of Jude Law's "lover" robot, Joe, and even William Hurt's compassion as a mad scientist/father figure, 'A.I.' stays in mind as a study in the combination of two the most brilliantly diverse directors to ever work in (or outside) the Hollywood system. The simple plot: Haley-Joel Osment stars as David, the first A.I. "boy" programmed to--get this--actually love, and the typically cliche quest: Once rejected, David goes on a journey to become a "real" boy--are, in actuality, deceivingly complicated. While the basics are set up like bowling pins(the assumption being that Spielberg will just knock 'em down), the execution is more like a couple of 7/10 splits and a spare. Spielberg manages to throw suprising curveballs around each corner; unexpectedly humourous moments tossed with a bizarre futurevison that even David Cronenberg would smile at. The studied, impressive performances from Osment, Law and Frances O'Connor as David's human mother, play great with the cool, atmospheric grays and tacky neon of a future America that is undoubtedly Kubrick yet accessibly Spielberg. While it's not surprising to discover that 'A.I.' is, at times, a modernistic 'E.T,' there are enough shades of '2001' and even 'Eyes Wide Shut' to create a stunning, highly absorbing, modern classic.
Rating:
Summary: What a great film-
Review: Even though box office earnings were considered a blunder, A.I. is to be appreciated because it stands on it's own as a great film. I think anyone who disliked this film was most likely expecting to be entertained and amused by it. Most Spielberg films do exactly that. The Kubrick influence is evident and this film instead comes across at times very disturbing and will leave you questioning humanity and love itself. Other reviews can tell you the premise. This one simply says "see this movie because it will change your views". Plus, the DVD is awesome with great extras on the amazing special effects and interviews with cast and crew. Spielberg really spills his guts on what his vision of the film is. This is a great one.
Rating:
Summary: Kubrick fans mourn
Review: Although an interesting view of the future (which thankfully downplays Spielberg's usual awful family/religion based view of the world) this is such a dull movie. For a start, where's the problem? The kid is horrible. Haley Joel Osment should be packed up in a sealed crate and left to rust! Who would want the pathetic disturbing guffawing little idiot in their house in the first place?
And worst of all, there's a revolting Christian feeling to this movie's lazy morality that will have all intelligent beings vomiting popcorn before the first hour has passed. If God existed, even he (in his 'infinite mercy' - don't laugh) would have struck most of the cast down on the spot. A tragic end to a legendary movie career.
Rating:
Summary: Pinocchio Meets Blade Runner
Review: With most Stanley Kubrick movies, you'll either love it or hate it. A.I. is no exception. A.I. was the pet project of the late Stanley Kubrick, who in fact never got a chance to direct this movie. Instead, his friend, director Steven Spielberg, reconstructed the late director 's notes and created a movie very true to Kubrick's original vision. A.I. is essentially an updated version of Pinocchio. The story is set in the near distant future in a Blade Runner type world. Humans have created life-like robots to assist them in their daily work and leisure activities. Haley Joel Osmont plays the part of "David", a robot constructed as a loving child to the fill the void left by a couple's comatose son. However, David is unable to please his real parents and is eventually banished. The story is his journey in discovering who and what he really is. In the end, the film requires us to reflect on society's responsibility in creating artificially intelligent beings who have feelings too. Do we accept these artificial beings as equals or do we treat them as throw away appliances? Again, you'll either love or hate this movie. It's very slow paced at times. However, it requires the viewer to think. Something that most movies today fail to do. This film also features a wonderful soundtrack by John Williams.
Rating:
Summary: uh, what... ?
Review: It's difficult to believe this movie would have been released, in this form, at this length, with this ending had the name "Spielberg" not been attached to it. Yes, the film has a few bright spots - the visuals are quite striking at times, and Jude Law gives a wonderful turn as a robotic prostitute, but on the whole, the film just rambles (at considerable length) without going anywhere. It's a lot like a dream - filled with physical impossibilities, emotionally wrenching at times... but then, in most dreams, you don't have to wait 45 minutes for what you already know is going to be an unsatisfying ending. Better you should rent Disney's Pinnochio, or read the book... you'll get a better ending and possibly enjoy yourself.
| 
