A.I. Artificial Intelligence 10/10

[ghostworldfan]

A.I. was one of the best films of the year. It featured the best special effects ever made, an amazing performane by Haley Joel Osment and an awesome ending. The story is one that is truly original. A robot is programed to love. I thought robots were cold, mechanical gizmos? Oh well. A.I., like i said before, has the most amazing special effects ever. you acan even tell this by watching the first 10 minutes of the movie. The future in this film is very cool, but at the same time, scary. That Flesh Fair place was freaky and disturbing. Jude Law gives us a very believably and likeable performance. His character is funny. Well, not much more to say on this film except that it is a truly amazing achievement.

[urbanlegend23]

A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001)

I think we all know that carrying on Stanley Kubrick’s dream idea is going to be a challenge. So, who better to make the movie than the most unchallenged director in the world, Mr. Steven Speilberg? Excellent idea. Fortunately Speilberg pulls off a great directing job, but I just get the feeling that Kubrick would not be very happy with this movie.

Lets start with the bad things. The whole script and story is like “Pinocchio 2: And No, It’s Not By Disney! It’s by Steven Speilberg! Up yours, Walt!” Let’s see why, shall we? Haley Joel Osment plays a robot that wants to be a real boy! There is actually a blue fairy in this film. I actually heard a few people sighing every time Haley muttered “I wish I was a real boy.” Steven, we’ve seen this story don’t before, and much better!

The ideas for this movie are really stupid too. The Flesh Fair was so incredibly lame that I found myself having to grab onto the chair without rolling into the aisles with laughter. Rouge City, meant to be like a robot’s version of Las Vegas, is really horrid to look at. The people and things Gigolo Joe (Jude Law) and David (Osment) encounter in this nicely designed but blindly bright and entirely unbelievable are really just dumb. Especially that professor that pops out of a computer. Does the script actually try to be this stupid?

The thing that most audiences have complained about with A.I. Artificial Intelligence is the ending. I couldn’t agree more with those who walked out with frustrated looks on their face. The whole concept of the ending is empty and dumb, I found it very hard to take seriously. The movie finishes on a very anti-climatic note and I couldn’t thought up 20 better places where the movie could’ve finished.

Luckily, there are some good points that save A.I. Artificial Intelligence from being completely and utterly disastrous. The acting is spectacular. Haley Joel Osment is actually better in this movie than he was in The Sixth Sense. He deserves a Best Actor trophy this year. Frances O’Connor, who grows on me more with each movie, gives a career-best as the confused and bewildered mother. O’Connor is amazing subtle and sympathetic in this movie and all the great parts of the movie have her in it. I was disappointed with Jude Law’s performance. Although he was a very good robot, his character was boring and his performance didn’t provide any real screen presence or interest.

The visuals and makeup in this movie are better than any robot movie I have ever seen. Rogue City does look terribly stupid and that is where the visuals go wrong, but throughout the rest of the movie the effects were quite stunning. The makeup on the robots was very original and detailed.

Well, it’s happened guys. As much as I hate to admit it, Steven Speilberg has actually made an under-average movie. As much as I really wanted to like A.I. Artificial Intelligence, to me it came off as one of the stupidest films of the year, with some sequences that just make you think – “Mr. Kubrick, Sir…was this really your idea?”

4/10

[notchjohnson]

When A.I. came out you couldnt help but read the numerous rants schomes made about how A.I. was ruined by spielberg.Stanley Kubricks masterpiece was destroyed and given a kiddie treatment by Spielberg.Will the schomes that thought this please answer my question?What makes you think kubrick would be upset about spielbergs version?Is it because kubrick's previous films were dark and disturbing?From what i understand from seeing interviews and movies, kubrick and spielberg had a great respect and admiration for each other.Kubrick believed the only person on the face of the earth that could complete his writing and make his film was spielberg.How do the schomes know that kubrick and spielberg could have never meet to talk about his movie idea or kubrick could have left spielberg notes on how he wanted the writng and direction to be.Basically what im trying to say is A.I. is a brillant work of art that two great minds came up with. A.I. is a 10/10 whether it's kubricks or spielbergs.

[This message has been edited by notchjohnson (edited 03-01-2002).]

[inglourious basterd]

The other day, I ran across a pretty good review of the movie at www.ign.com. (http://www.ign.com.) Here is an excerpt of what this reviewer thought of the movie (I pasted it here because I thought it was a pretty well-written review):

A.I. Artificial Intelligence

by Jeremy Conrad
2002-02-12

The first time I saw A.I. at a press screening, the film faded to the credits and some fool in the back of the theater (in a futile attempt to look "cool") shouted out, "Hollywood Bulls***!" Right when that was heard, someone in the front of the theater replied, "You have no brain!"

I think that exchange pretty much explains how A.I. would be accepted. There would be those who simply don't get the film and see it as only a Pinocchio story, while others would love the film and the concepts and questions contained within.

Me? I think A.I. is great. I love the look of the film, the concepts behind it, and the questions it asked. On the other hand, I do have issues with how it ended, but everything up to that end is brilliant.

A.I. opens with a question posed. If a robot child is created who can truly love a parent as a real child, could that robot (or "Mecha" as they are called in the film) be truly accepted by a parent?

This is set up for you right at the beginning of the movie. You know what the philosophy behind the movie is right as you go into it, but Spielberg takes the story into a couple different directions, including the Pinocchio arc that so many people didn't like.

A.I. is the story of David (Haley Joel Osment), the first robot child created to love as a real child could, and his adventures in both the worlds of humans and robots. The movie is loosely based on a short story titled "Super Toys Last All Summer Long", and the core story of that tale is retained in the film.

That short is a story of a robot child who is adopted by parents whose real son is ill. When the real son returns home, the robot questions is place in the grand scheme of things. In the movie, that is just the basis for the first thirty or forty minutes of film. It then goes off in a different direction with David completely believing the Pinocchio story and begins his quest to find the Blue Fairy to become a real boy so he could be accepted into the family again.

David journeys through a stunning future world that ranks right up there with Blade Runner as one of the most fully realized visions of the future ever put on film. From the bright neon streets of Rouge City to the flooded New York, ILM's work is excellent and completely deserving of their Academy Award nomination. To go with the visuals you have a John Williams soundtrack that is very different and experimental from his "normal" stuff.

Now, those who haven't seen the movie has best skip ahead to the end of the review as I'm going to have to spoil some things here to explain why I like the movie.

The effects in the film actually play a part in carrying across one story element. In the movie, Gigolo Joe tells David that in the end only Mecha will be left. If you look at the effects in the film (and the movie itself) they begin pretty conventional and move towards the end of the film that is almost entirely CGI or artificial.

Speaking of the ending, the movie sort of stumbles here. It actually seems to end three different times, and there is some debate as to if it should have ended with David trapped under the ice or when the future Mechas read his mind.

Personally, I enjoy the second choice. Think of it this way. There is a group of futuristic robots (they were not aliens as some people thought) digging up the frozen ruins of New York for some clue as to their origins and where they came from. What do they find? A robot in the form of a young boy, and they decide to read their minds. This would mean that everything the dominate species on Earth will know about our world would have come from the mind of a child.

Sure, the real ending of the film is a little too sugar coated and too much of the old Spielberg, but everything leading up to it is excellent and makes A.I. one of those films that will stay with you.

8 out of 10

[This message has been edited by psudoazn (edited 03-02-2002).]

[LordKaruku]

Okay.... 7/10, first of all. But what the hell is the big deal with Dr. Know? So many people have bashed on this character for being stupid, or unrealistic, or something. It struck me as exactly the sort of thing that is going to exist 20 years from now, when Disney & AOL Time Warner are making software programs that interact with people. Why has it inspired so much hatred from people? What about it don't you find realistic? Anyone?

As for the rest of the movie... the script contains fascinating concepts (Kubrick original) that are over-sentimentalized and filmed too cutesy (Spielburg), but A.I. still manages to be the best sci-fi film of 2001 and definitely merits repeat viewings, both for acting and for the impressive visual effects.

[The Professional]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by urbanlegend23:
[b]

Well, it’s happened guys. As much as I hate to admit it, Steven Speilberg has actually made an under-average movie. 4/10</font>


i take it you haven't seen Hook? http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif

[urbanlegend23]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by The Professional:

i take it you haven't seen Hook? http://www.joblo.com/ubb/smile.gif</font>

Oh, shit, I thought he just executive produced that. Damn, that movie sucked. Even more suckier than A.I. itself. In fact, that movie sucked even more than suck itself. It was the suckiest...

I'll stop now...horrible movies though, but I still appreciate the director

[Kavan]

Let me start out this review by being honest I don't know if I like AI or not. I've seen this film three times and still don't know. But I absolutely think it's a film worth seeing.

By now the history behind AI is as well known as the film. For twenty years Stanley Kubrick nursed the dream of AI leaving behind numerous sketches, plans, etc for the film. After his untimely death Steven Speilberg following some of those plans and some of his own brought the film to light. We'll never know what film Kubrick might have made.

The mere fact Speilberg and Kubrick are so different directors probably adds to the interest value in AI. Kubrick made some brilliant films but the humans were always somewhat chilly. Speilberg is a much more comforting, warm director. Just what kind of film would come from these two is interesting.

And AI is an interesting and yet often puzzling film. I found it by turns boring, frustrating, touching and annoying.

The film begins with a couple grieving for their son who has been comatose for five long years. Desperate to feel love they accept a robot/child. Turning the machine on the child feels love as presumably the mother does. Then the comatose child awakens. The parents torn and confused make a heartwrenching choice.

Or at least the choice is supposed to be heart wrenching. The problem is neither Speilberg's script nor direction convinced me the choice was even that hard. The parents continually treat David with disinterest and frequent coldness.

Alot of praise has been visited on Frances O'Conner as the mother. But what does it matter if O'Conner gives a good performance if we don't understand why her character behaves as she does? Speilberg's script never lets us understand the parents' motivations or feelings.

Since that only occupies the first 20 or so mins that flaw would be easily overcome if the rest of the film wasn't about David's desire to be reunited with his mother.

The script barely touched on the fact David didn't want to be reunited with his family he only wanted to be reunited with "mommy". I kept wondering what Kubrick would have done with his. Speilberg bathes the quest in warm lights but hints of Kubrick's coolness do sneak out.

I think the reason people reacted so much to the Blue Fairy stuff is because it was so overdone. The real boy card was effective at first but after awhile it lost me.

I regret that more explanation wasn't given to Hurt's character. The scenes with his character were far more involving and interesting than all the Monica stuff put together.

I also agree with the criticism of the final 15 minutes. Either of the two presumed endings before would have been far preferable to the sentimental, sappiness that Speilberg chose. The ending nullifies the rest of the film into some simple fairy tale ending.

What does work is the CGI. I am not a CGI fan and have spent many posts slamming it. But Speilberg has quite simply created a masterpiece with the CGI in this film. The scenes of a flooded Manhatten are absolutely stunning, the scenes of the frozen city are astounding. The little details like the hand of the Statute of Liberty sticking up over the water are quite moving. These little moments were more emotional than all the family stuff.

So what I was left with was a film that almost works in spite of itself.

I'm not even sure how to rate this film. It's so impressive visually and there are parts of it that are so truly moving. But then there are moments that are so sappy. But along with Vanilla Sky it's the movie I thought about the most deeply this year.

8/10




[This message has been edited by Kavan (edited 03-09-2002).]

[george]

I can see why people wouldnt like this film coz this is one of those movies which you either hate or love.
Well i love it.
A.I. is an excellent, exciting journey into many philosophical question and the search for true love.
-I agree with LordKaruku that Dr. Know is very realistic for the future.
-The whole pinochio conotation is in my oppinion great as it adds a flavor needed in the film: the theme of what is real and what is isnt.
-The ending is amazing but i found that i am the only one who interpreted the ending one way. BTW those are NOT aliens at the end they are advanced A.I.

A.I.: 10/10

george

[Kucha]

A good but complex plot IMO.. nice visual treats and fun, but I really couldn't get into the movie, and almost (literally) fell asleep watching it. But like was said... its not a movie for everyone, you love it ... or you don't, I am part of the crowd who doesn't.

A.I Artificial Intelligence - D+

Recommendations
Minority Report - N/A
E.T - B

[LedFloyd]

I liked AI, but didn't love it. I thought the acting was solid, I enjoyed the visuals, and the whole thing had some excellent imagination. The movie should of ended before Spielberg's happy finale, but this was still quite enjoyable. 7/10

[lynchfan_714]

I really didn't like this movie much at all. I really can't say anything more negative than what has already been said in this thread already.

A cheap Pinochio rip off plus and a creepy talking teddy bear equals snooze fest!

3/10

[Cronos]

this is one of spielbergs misses, everything about it is bad, the pacing is bad, the acting was very poor and i didnt find the story to be in the least bit interesting depsite it had a great concept

very disappointing

2/10

[moobycow]

Really hated this film. Was too long and just did not keep me interested. Towards the end of the film you really get the feeling the did not know how to end it and just kept on going untill it became stupid.