User reviews

AI is inspired by British science fiction writer, Brian Aldiss short story 'Supertoys Last All Summer Long.' It was a project initiated by Stanley Kubrick and then taken over by Steven Spielberg who directs as well as write the screenplay. It is a mixture of Spielberg's wide eyed childlike wonder from his ET era with Kubrick's cold gaze of adulthood. It is a modern version of Pinocchio.

The film is set in a future where the ice caps have melted and eradicated the coastline. Robots of increasing sophistication have become part of the fabric of society. Professor Hobby (William Hurt) has created an android with programme to love and be more human like.

Monica and Henry Swinton (Frances O'Connor and Sam Robards) have a terminally ill son and take in David (Haley Joel Osment) almost as a substitute son to love. David as he is programmed is fixated on his mother and projects his love.

When their son Martin (Jake Thomas) miraculously recovers and returns home, the new family of four becomes fractious. Martin is mean to David who cannot interact with other kids. It is not in his programming. An incident means that like a dangerous pet, he could be dangerous in the house. However Monica is not willing to send him back to the corporation where he would be presumably terminated.

Monica cares enough for David to abandon him in the woods with a Teddy Bear who is also an AI robot for companionship and wisdom (his Jiminy Cricket.) From there David befriends other robots such as Gigolo Joe (Jude Law), a sex-bot on the run after being framed for murder. They evade resentful humans and journey to find the Blue Fairy whom David believes can turn him into a real boy so his mother can love him.

David is a boy who becomes accepted quickly by becoming part of a family only to find that he is not afforded their protection when he is gauded and provoked by Martin. Once in he wilds with Gigolo Joe he is living in fear in a society where robots have no rights.

Spielberg creates two sound stages for the middle of his film. Flesh Fair a gaudy, sleazy place where robots are destroyed in front of cheering humans but David pleads for his life and swings the crowd his way. Then there is Rouge City, A Vegas type place where the holographic Dr Know points them to the top of Rockefeller Center in the flood hit of Manhattan where he meets his creator, Professor Hobby.

The final act set in the submerged Coney Island which is then frozen over in an oncoming ice age until David is rescued by advanced beings.

I have to confess. I liked the ending. It bought an emotional crescendo to a flawed film. It moved me as it allows David to find he is the recipient of love and can finally grow and become human even if it is all a projection from the beings that rescued him. Without this ending, I would had found this to be a dull, uninvolving and grim experience. Humans treating robots like pets who are soon discarded once they are no longer fulfil a useful function.

I understand that this ending was part of the Kubrick draft and not added by Spielberg. Kubrick finally showed his sentimental side.

A.I. is a difficult film. Some of it is brilliant, while some is dire.

The acting - Haley Joel Osment as David the mecha (robot) boy is superb. He plays the role with such intelligence and maturity - it's a real achievement and bodes well for his future (if he can avoid hitting the self destruct button like so many other child stars.) Jude Law puts in another solid performance as 'Gigolo Joe' the mecha prostitute. In a similar vein to his previous roles in Gattaca and eXistenZ, he's quirky and somehow detached from reality - it works brilliantly. He's rapidly turning into one of my favourite actors. "Hey Joe - Waddya know?"

The rest of the cast is very good but doesn't shine, perhaps because their characters were treated lightly and not fully explored. Overall though - good performances by all.

The sets , costumes and special effects are of a very high standard. Until the last 30 minutes or so, the use of computer graphics is tastefully done and never feel like an excuse to wow the audience with some clever CGI. The scenes at the Flesh Fair (a kind of rock concert where mecha are destroyed for the entertainment of spectators) are powerful, visceral and in your face. The flying and underwater scenes were also very well handled, although not mind blowing.

Now the downside, and it's a big downside.

The plot is incredibly disjointed. I didn't expect it to be so obvious that this movie had been directed by two different people and thought Spielberg to be more subtle. There was apparently little attempt by Spielberg to blend his parts of the movie with Kubrick's to create a coherent whole. Instead what we get is a wonderfully dark first 60-90 minutes and then something reminiscent of 'Close Encounters of the E.T. kind' tacked on to make us feel good. As a result, the feel of the film quickly evaporated into a mush. There were a couple of chances to end the movie earlier (notably at the end of the underwater section) and it was a mistake to take the movie beyond these points. The poignancy is lost with repeated attempts to extend and explain the story in unnecessary ways, the scene with David's mother towards the end being especially contrived and saccharin.

The sum up, this felt like two movies in one - an intelligent, dark and fascinating film mixed one that's formulaic, sentimental and cheesy. Because of this it fails to reach the promised heights and at times feels messy. It's ultimately unsatisfying and left me very disappointed, but not because it's bad, but rather because I expected so much more. As many others have said, I can't help wondering what heights it would have reached if Kubrick hadn't passed away.

An interesting film, but rent it first as it's not for everyone.

Stanley Kubrick made a career out of directing brilliant but unpleasant movies. The ultimate example is "A Clockwork Orange," which I saw for the first time just a few months ago. I found it astonishing, thought-provoking, and visually brilliant. But my experience watching the film was not in any way a pleasant one. The film chronicles the hideous crimes of a charmless psychopath, and ultimately how he is captured and subjected to an almost unimaginable series of tortures. I suppose some moviegoers might find those kinds of scenes entertaining, but I do not. Nevertheless, I consider it a great film, and a tremendously important one.

"A.I." is harder for me to justify. While not technically a Kubrick film, it is a Kubrick project that was finally directed by Steven Spielberg, following Kubrick's death. The result is a film that manages to combine the worst qualities of these two great filmmakers: it has Kubrick's obtuseness as well as Spielberg's sentimentality. The ending is deliberately designed to frustrate, to remove itself from any possible human reference point that we can easily relate to. At the same time, it's the sort of film that wants to be loved. There is even a teddy bear character that evokes mystery and awe more than cuteness. This awkward fusion of purposes left me feeling distinctly uncomfortable.

I feel unjustified for giving the film as low a rating as 6/10. I just so intensely disliked the film that I have great difficulty rating it any higher, despite its clever and thoughtful handling of the concept of artificial intelligence. No doubt Kubrick has covered this territory before, in "2001" with the character of Hal. But he seems to expand on it in this film, which features two android characters, a child robot played by Haley Joel Osment, and a robot gigolo (don't ask) played by Jude Law. The behavior of these characters is so subtle and complex that I was often left wondering what they were thinking and feeling, what the experience of being a robot was like, if such an experience is possible. I personally believe that there is something special about human subjective experience that cannot be duplicated by computer technology. But this movie presents the opposite view very compellingly, and without taking the standard route of making the androids seem human.

In this regard, Osment is spectacular: his performance in my opinion surpasses his Oscar-nominated one in "The Sixth Sense." There were moments when I looked at his eyes, his facial expressions, and I sensed an adult level of understanding and depth. Perhaps no child actor is better than Osment at acting creepy without being cute, as in one early scene when he startles his family with oddly forced laughter that doesn't seem to come with the appropriate emotions. He is playing a character who's supposed to pass for a child while not really being a child, and we slowly realize that he is in fact an alien intelligence with his own perspective and goals. Unlike a real child, he is not in the process of forming an identity. He already has one, and his only task is to fulfill his set desires and instincts, including his unbreakable attachment to his "mother" (Frances O'Connor) whom he is preprogrammed to love.

This setup is not very conducive to melodrama, yet that's much of what we get throughout the film, which tries to cast itself as a modern reinterpretation of "Pinocchio." Since Osment's character is not a real boy, we can never relate to him as one. His emotions are as artificial as his intelligence, and no enchantment or anything else will turn him into a real boy, because he simply isn't one. Yet the movie tries to manipulate our emotions so that we do see him as more human than he actually is. This approach leads the film to lose its focus in the second half and put forth one of the more perplexing and unsatisfying endings I've seen in a long time. I don't mind whether a film ends happily or sadly, but it should not try to force a weak solution to a hopeless situation, just to gain a few moments of cheap sentiment.

I was 13-14 when I watched this movie. It's a long movie if I recall it correctly. I was so moved by it's theme, so I watched it all. I had strong feelings of sadness and sympathy towards little robot David that wanted to be a real child and to have a mom to love him. And that little bear ... I cried during some scenes. I don't think I cried that much at any movie like at this one. Even though it's a Sci-Fi movie it has a lot of emotions. I have never watched it again since then. It'll be too hard for me P.S I don't get how some people can rate this incredible movie with an 1 ? like why ? Of course it's not a perfect movie, but sometimes it doesn't have to be. It matters your feelings about it, because this movie is that deep. 10/10

A fiercely compelling movie, at first, owing to how sickly it is. It raised a few hard questions on the ethics of sentient machines but isn't heavy handed with them.

Doubtlessly a bit creaky and heavy handed, especially with the whole Pinocchio subtext. But it's weird enough, and filled with so many vivid images of a grotesque future, no less brutal for the technological advances.

I'm not saying it's not campy and kind of stupid but that's better than boring.

As shamelessly ridiculous as this movie is, I can't make too much fun of it since by the end I was balling like an infant. It's hard hitting. I am one of those unpleasant cretins that would laugh at someone getting run over if they'd hurt my feelings the previous year. But this movie broke me down, man.

Kubrick was a genius. Spielberg is a genius. But, they are different types of geniuses and they don't mix or match. No genius can do it the same way, which is why the person is a genius. They best you can do is get another genius that has a similar thematic view.

Kubrick's clever dark philosophical view simply does not match with Spielberg's common mass entertainment view. Spielberg was simply the wrong genius to complete the work. All of Kubrick's later works (even the one-off Spartacus) have a dark philosophical vision and satirical point to make. It's like trying to mix Socrates with Nietzsche or even Aristotle. They're all great, but very different. The decision to use Spielberg was too superficial ("who's recognized as the best film director right now, generally speaking?...").

It didn't work, not because of Spielberg's genius movie-making technical skills, it didn't work because of Spielberg's lack of the dark philosophical satirical vision. Spielberg is a genius at making a movie that wows an audience; Kubrick is a genius at making a movie, perhaps a satire, with a dark view of or exposition of ironic hypocrisy, in human beings and society.

Just look at the expressions of George C. Scott in "Dr. Strangelove" in the war room. A manly sophisticated general, with oodles of power, making childlike pouts and expressions. It's not meant to be funny, per se, it's meant to make a point. But you have to see it. And, that's all the difference in the world.

I was sure that this would be a great movie. I'm convinced that Spielberg is one of the best of today's directors so a project like this should certainly turn into gold in his hands. But apparently I was wrong. It's not the way everything is shown. From the beginning until the end it all looks very good, even breath taking from time to time. The surroundings (especially at the end of the movie), the gadgets, the robots,... it all has been done in a way that can't be disapproved. But I need more in a movie than just some good special effects and cool gadgets. I want a breath taking story, I want to see real emotions and feelings,... and that's where this movie went wrong. It all looked fine, but when you try to dig a bit deeper, you'll notice that this is actually a 'sterile' movie. It never felt real to me.

If you ask me to describe the movie than I would say that this is a mixture of fairy tales like Pinokkio (it literally refers to it several times during the movie), The Terminator (it's futuristic, has robots in it and shows how people react to those robots) and Tron (because of some costumes). The story is about a robot-boy that has been created to act and feel like a human. First his 'parents' love him, but than their real son awakes from a coma and they no longer want him. The robot-boy is convinced that he has to become a real human and that then his mommy will love him again. Because he has heard the story of Pinnochio, he goes after 'The Blue Fairy' who will transform him and make a human boy out of him, just like in the fairy tale.

Overall this isn't such a bad movie, it's a bit slow from time to time and it never really seems real, but the special effects make sure this is still a movie that will be remembered. The only problem with it is that you know that it could have been so much better. That's why I give it a 6/10.

One would think that a science fiction film produced and directed by Steven Spielberg (who also contributed to the screenplay) inspired by the vision of the late Stanley Kubrick would have to be a brilliant work of monumental significance. Think again.

This story was a passion for Kubrick, who always wanted to film it. Spielberg picked it up as homage to Kubrick and attempted to imbue it with Kubrickian nuances. While the film is clearly infused with the sci-fi spirit of 2001: A Space Odyssey, it has neither the dramatic power nor the philosophical depth of that classic. Instead, we have an insignificant and disjointed human interest story, full of sentimental pap about a boy who isn't even human.

To be sure, the visual effects are outstanding. With Spielberg at the helm, this was bound to be a given. Using the latest technology and a $90 Million budget, Spielberg cranks out another effects show that rivals his latest Jurassic Park episode (another dud of a screenplay with great visuals). However, the story never gets any traction and we are left hoping the characters would just shut up and get to the next computer generated image.

The first hour of the movie is boring and tedious as we see robot boy David (Haley Joel Osment) attempt to adapt to his new human family and vice versa. Then suddenly Spielberg tries to shake thing up by throwing David into the standard futuristic anarchical society, a backdrop long ago rendered hackneyed in this genre. Shifting into third gear, we are then taken on a sci-fi junket to old New York, now semi-submerged from the effects of global warming, which have caused the oceans to rise at least 200 feet to cover all but the highest skyscrapers (we cannot possibly have a sci-fi film lately without some political hyperbole lurking in the subtext). Then fourth gear and we go on a journey far into future where David comes face to face with advanced beings in his quest to become a real boy, just like Pinocchio.

Spielberg attempts to meld ET, Close Encounters of the Third Kind and 2001 A Space Odyssey, to create a mosaic of themes that does justice to none of them. The last segment is punctuated by the advanced beings driveling about how the human race is the one true link to the meaning of life. This is extremely ironic given the events of David's journey including vile children mocking him, parents who abandon him, a flesh fair and a futuristic red light district full of violence and debauchery.

The film is also full of annoyingly unbelievable depictions, such as a love robot (Jude Law) who is a sophisticated piece of technology able to reason and operate at a very high level, who has to crick his neck to turn on his mood music.

The acting is terrific, despite the vapid dialogue. Haley Joel Osment just keeps getting better and better. He presents just the right balance of robotic disconnection with his human counterparts and the sincere efforts of an emotional being attempting to emerge. Jude Law also gives another outstanding performance as Joe Gigolo, stealing just about every scene in which he appears.

This was supposed to be one of the all time blockbusters, but despite putting up decent numbers, it failed to even match its budget at the box office. For once, I have to agree with the masses that this film just failed to distinguish itself beyond the special effects. I rated it a 6/10. Mark it up as a bad day at the office for Steven Spielberg.

I would say that I was disappointed by this movie, except that I admittedly went in with relatively low expectations (based on reviews) and it wasn't THAT bad. But the movie WAS a mess. There is a great idea buried in here somewhere, and its an interesting topic with great dramatic potential. But the movie only achieves emotional fusion in fits and starts, and it just sort of wanders on along rather than moving with force and purpose. The ending, in particular, should have been much, much better, and felt tacked on, perhaps in service of the fairy tale narration. In the end, this one felt like it needed two or three more passes beneath an editor's red pen to tighten it up, focus the plot, highlight the theme, etc. I was very ready for it to be over, long before the final credits rolled.

There is a great movie about this topic out there waiting to be made, its just disappointing when arguably the greatest living director failed to deliver. Maybe a 5/10.

This has to be Steven Spielberg's strangest film. Maybe that's because he collaborated with Stanley Kubrick on it, and Kubrick's movies are almost all bizarre. It was another of those films I found fascinating on the first look but increasingly unlikeable on subsequent looks. It went from a "9" on the first viewing, to a "7" to a "5." In fact, I didn't even finish it on the third look.

Nonetheless, it's the typical Spielberg or Kubrick film in a number of areas, meaning great visuals, just stunning at times; a definite anti-Christian bias (that you see more and more in the carnival segment as you watch this multiple times); a very secular humanist outlook on life but a nice sentimental ending with the message that everyone needs to feel loved.

Haley Joel Osment gives one more example of why he is one of the best child actors of any era. His role is memorable and just the looks on his face would soften the hardest heart. The first of the three segments in this film was hard for me to watch in spots as the innocent Osment ("David") was framed for things by his "real brother" and then abandoned by his mother. Those are difficult scenes because the film is involving right off the bat. You really care about this young boy

The rest of the film offers fantastic visuals and an interesting, but a too Liberal- slanted story, for me to watch again. Sorry, but Spielberg and Kubrick - two men who have made some extremely entertaining films - are too bigoted for my tastes, at least in this movie.

This Movie is as Underrated as E.T. (1982) is Overrated.

Steven Spielberg and Stanley Kubrick, Two of the most Admired Directors, combined Visions and worked Together until Kubrick's Death. Spielberg Took Over the Project but did Not Cheat on Kubrick's more Cynical and Pessimistic Approach.

The Result is this Great Film that is an Emotionally Exhausting, Visually Exciting Fairy-Tale. It is Disturbing and Delightful. Basically it is "Pinocchio", Restyled and Revisioned in a Sci-Fi-Horror-Cautionary-Allegory for Modern Times.

Not for Everyone, it may be too Unsettling at times for very Young Viewers. It is Heartwarming and Heart-Wrenching and Deeply Depressing. The Futuristic Visual Template is Amazing.

Only the most Hardened of Hearts could be Unmoved by its Sentimentality seen through the Eyes of a Robot Child. The Parallels and Direct Links to Real Children are Painful to Watch as the Artificial Boy must go through Parental Rejection and some of Real-Life's Horrifying Realities.

A Good Cast all Deliver Searing Performances in Difficult Roles. Overall the Movie is Not a very Pleasing Entertainment for those Wishing for the Usual Spielberg Scrubbed Suburbanism.

Although the Movie does have an Abundance of Heart. The Viewer will find His/Her Heart Warmed and then Frozen, Filled with Love then Broken and Drained, only to have it Filled Again.

For some it may be just Too Much of an Emotional Roller-Coaster Ride, but for others Willing to be Shaken and Stirred, Caressed and Cuddled, Shocked and Stunned, all at the Same Time, this is Just the Thing.

An Under Appreciated Masterpiece of Manipulation, with No Pull Back along the Road Trip Search for Enlightenment.

The A.I. Child, Prays and Searches for, the "Blue Fairy" His Whole "Life". Organic Types Frequently do the Same Thing. Orga = Mecha = Orga

I'll say this with a sigh and I don't want to say this, but I was really disappointed with this movie. But let me explain how this film got a high and an above average 7 out of ten.

This is what I felt for the first say, 1hour 45 minutes. I felt this movie was one of the most thrilling, exciting, sad, brilliant movies of the decade. And I don't throw compliments like that around often. Hayley Joel Osmont played a stunning, captivating role that is Oscar worthy and Jude Law did a mighty fine job also. In fact, the acting all round was quite impressive. Visually, well, it was flawless. The directing, the lighting, the special effects, the robots, all perfect, the music was moving and atmospheric and intertwined with the movies disturbing and oddball theme and it never failed to offer heart-wrenching moments and tense, unnerving scenes. The movie went along at a fast enough pace, jumping quickly from one section to another perfectly and hit all the right emotions that made you actually feel for the robots. Very symbolic in places, especially the FLESH FAIR which was a direct hint towards the holocaust. The future was predicted well, quite possible in fact and it wasn't too ridiculous to be imaginable. The settings, scenery and ambiance was just advanced enough to have a futuristic tone, but restricted enough to be possible. In a nutshell, this film is pretty hard to criticize. Well, this is what I thought, until after the scene that changed everything.

*spoiler warning* I remember the start of the movie had an introductory narrative, explaining the worlds conditions and such and how the story would begin. Much, much later in the movie the voice returned, whilst David is submerged under water and pleading with blue fairy statue to make him a real boy. The voice returned in a fashion that the movie would end. The voice explains how David kept pleading and how did so for over 2000 years. At this point I thought this movie was amazing and one of my favorites, the perfect ending to the movie and a really moving and exceptionally thought provoking ending to AI. But no, Spielberg had to give us more. And a really awful ending entails.

In short, it shows David breaking out of the ice 2000 years later and meeting up with a group of badly designed, unimaginative aliens that would let him see his mother for one more day. At this point, all the humans have become extinct and therefore, of course, his mother has died. But somehow these aliens manage to use bits of people to recreate the humans perfectly for one more day. An over-sentimental, over-emotional and a particularly "Disney" scene follows, that is dragged out, embarrassing, out of context with the rest of the movie, sickeningly happy and downright awful. This movie was always disturbing and off-the-wall and this ending is just a complete contrast that just does not fit. It literally ruined a movie that had the full potential to be a classic, yet the last 15 minutes, Spielberg did a "fairy-tale ending on it" and ruined it. I can't explain how utterly crap it is and I actually felt angry and depressed that something as simple as a conclusion can ruin a spectacular experience. A dark ending to a dark movie was the way to go, was the way to create a masterpiece, but Stephen Spielberg obviously had his way and destroyed.

I strongly urge people to watch this movie, but I also strongly suggest you stop it after the second narrative kicks in. Until then, I would've given it a perfect 10 out of ten, but nothing denies that Spielberg made a fatal mistake.

What a pity.

Steven Spielberg's latest movie A.I.: ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE, which he took up at the encouragement of the late, great Stanley Kubrick, has caused widely divergent comments. And I can't help wondering if the most scathingly negative reviews of this movie aren't just an open desire to see Spielberg crash, as he had with "1941" and HOOK.

For my money, Spielberg has done it again with this futuristic science fiction drama, regardless of what the negative reviews say. Its story of a robot boy (Haley Joel Osment) who desires to be a real boy in a far future in which humans (Orgas) and machines (Mechas) exist side-by-side but not always in harmony is very much modeled on the Pinocchio story, though it is actually based on a 1969 short story by Brian Aldiss. It raises some interesting and sometimes unsettling moral dilemmas that few films of late have done. Can a parent love a child, even if that child is not real? What might happen if that child desired to be real? How will Man and Machine be able to co-exist?

Like all intelligent science fiction, such as Kubrick's own 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY and Spielberg's own CLOSE ENCOUNTERS, A.I. forces us to ponder where we've been and where we might be going. It's an incredible combination of Kubrick's icy intellectual and clinical mind and Spielberg's emotional heart; and I think it works exceedingly well. But it forces the viewer to not leave their heart and brains at the door, which I think is why it is being so negatively received in this season of mindless summer movie fare. It may be too intelligent for its own good, and many don't have the 145 minutes of patience needed for the movie. I did, however; and I would call this an absolute masterpiece. Out of ten stars, give this one a 10.

In the 22nd century, with robots commonplace in society, a couple grieving their ill child receive a replacement: the first robotic boy! Director and co-screenwriter Steven Spielberg works peculiar magic with this story (initially conceptualized by his late friend Stanley Kubrick from the short story "Supertoys Last All Summer Long" by Brian Aldiss), setting up the pieces very carefully and then surging forth with dark adventure. The Flesh Fair sequence is masterful, as are some of the shots of Haley Joel Osment (doing fabulous work in the lead). But Spielberg stumbles early on with a birthday party scene which reveals the parents to be stupid and cruel (it's a cringe-worthy moment). Another dire sequence occurs later, when the kid and his traveling companion (a robot stud, who is wanted by the cops in a murky, unnecessary subplot) ask questions of an animated wizard with the voice of Robin Williams! Just when you feel Spielberg has grown up and taken stock of his strengthens, he throws in a corny curveball (perhaps to placate "E.T." fans?). The picture is ultimately unsuccessful in its storytelling--particularly with an epilogue that takes place 2000 years later!--however, much of the acting is fine and the art direction is incredible. Two Oscar nominations including Best Visual Effects, with no wins; the visual effects team were also nominated for a BAFTA. ** from ****

When I first watched this film in the theater, I was greatly disappointed. I'm not entirely sure what I was expecting, but it felt so emotionally removed, dark and angry. The robots who were created to be as close to human as possible were destroyed at the hands of the ugly humans themselves. In a lot of ways the HBO t.v. Show "Westworld" owes a lot to this film (conversely, maybe this movie owes something to the Crichton book). Because Spielberg is asking us to apply emotions and feelings to things that cannot feel. Or can they?

That is the question. The disposable nature of 2022-2022 has me thinking how obsolete humans actually are. Though our brutish arrogance cannot allow use to see us any other way. As the technology becomes shinier and more aware, we become more animalistic.

In this case, David is a creation of a scientist (William Hurt) who suffers from the loss of a child. To prevent further pain of parents losing their loved ones, a surrogate child in a recreation of his own deceased son has gone online with a family that has a son in a coma.

Monica Swinton (Frances O'Connor) is actually the core of which this story revolves around. She is the grief stricken mother who adopts the surrogate, develops feelings for it, only have to abandon it. Which leads David to search for her back. The sense of being a real human boy drives David to find the Blue Fairy so that it may grant him a wish. A false dangling reward to which, we as the audience understand the truth.

Yes, this also taps into Pinocchio. A inanimate puppet made to be alive by a fairy who wants to become a human boy. A lot of the Spielberg tropes will pepper this story. The idea that humans see mecha as useless tools or enslave them to simplify our lives. Only to have them be used and discarded. The idea of family. The Peter Pan quality of eternal youth. There is a melancholy to this movie that most people will not enjoy.

What is Spielberg's message overall. Hard to say. I think Stanley Kubrick took a crack at this story as well, and what they couldn't get past is how something that is programmable may develop a soul. It's something that doesn't exist in the explainable, but rather the spiritual.

As I am now 20+ years older than the first time I watched this, my own mortality is in question. And it makes you have more empathy towards the zen-like soul of which most things do possess.

I loved this film. It isn't one of the greatest films ever made, but it's a personal favorite of mine. I cried at the two sad points, I laughed at the mannerisms of Gigalo Joe and Teddy, the super-toy, my heart pumped faster at the action, suspense, and horror, but overall, I really enjoyed the film on a whole. I didn't find an ounce of it boring at all. It's practically the same as observing an extraordinary life and extraordinary tale of a boy who just wants his mommy. But the boy is not a boy, and rather a robot. But the way he acts can pass for a human any day.

The look of the film was dazzling and amazing. From the facilities in the underwater Manhatten, to the curvy, sensual architecture of Rouge City. I really felt as if I were really going along for a great ride and once I stepped out of the theater, I wanted more.

The film is from Steven Spielberg based on Brian Aldiss' short story, "Super-toys Last All Summer Long" which was doctored up by Stanley Kubrick. The film is a tribute to the legendary filmaker, but it is not his film, but rather Spielberg's. Sure it sometimes tries to mimic his styles, but that's practically the same as a filmmaker paying homage to a great. It's more or less the same as somebody making his adaptation of a novel or maybe graphic novel, since Kubrick supplied some of his artwork through designs. The story is Kubrick's, but the film is Spielberg's.

Although it may seem ridiculous to some at some points, it's a future, not THE future, but a rendition of it and somethings may happen in THIS future that may seem unrealistic. The film has a great score, but it just doesn't stand out like some of John Williams's other scores. The end could be considered a homage to Spielberg's "Close Encounters Of the Third Kind" or it could be something different, something more along the lines of the film's title, Artificial Intelligence, but only a far more advanced form of it.

The acting in this film is great along with the emotions, visions, humor, and fright. I found this film to be extraordinarily superb, but whether you think it's as good, is up to you.

The movie starts quite slow but quickly picks up and pulls it all together to get the viewer thrilled and then it doesn't end when it should have, there was a pointless and appauling 30minutes tagged onto the end of the movie that just stopped it being one of the greatest movies ever told. The plot is quite simple a robot boy wants to be human, kinda like pinnochio of the future then some random stuff happens and it WONT END!!!! thats my only real problem that it went on far longer than it needed to or should have! the casting was brilliant Jude Law turned in a fantastic performance and the direction was above average, spielberg certainly knows how to get the most out of his cast i just dont like the endings or some of the choices he makes regarding the odd bit of camera work but these are merely niggling holes in a good film worth seeing but turn it off about 30min from the end.