Much has been said in the advanced publicity about the fact that Spielberg used this film as a tribute to Stanley Kubrick who originated the project.  Somehow Spielberg made a film as muddled and slow paced as “2001 – A Space Odyssey.”  I almost fell asleep and John William’s lullaby-like score did not help. 

      Much has also been said about the use of special effects in the film.  Yes, a lot of special effects were used in the film.  But if you’ve seen the TV commercials, you’ve seen the best of them.  Though numerous, the rest of the effects are uninteresting and ineffective.

      Osment does a very nice job as David.  I realize he is supposed to be a robot, but even so, his character is stiff, does not grow and is not compelling.  I blame the script and director for that.  All of the actors in the film do a decent job, but none of the characters are interesting, and some are very inconsistent.  Take for example David’s “father” (Sam Robards).  He does not have much of a role but when he first acquires David he is very excited and interested in the child.  Without the film really telling us why, his support for the idea of David erodes very quickly.   Sure David almost accidentally kills his human step brother, but that just does not seem like a good enough reason.

      A significant part of the film is narrated.  That is always a sign that the filmmakers know the story is not being communicated well.  Much of the story makes no sense at all and we are left wondering why David’s “mother” (Frances O'Connor) who so wanted a child to love could herself become such an inhuman unloving monster; how David could continue to love her; why the old Teddy Bear robot has so much more common sense than the newer much more technologically advanced robots; why the group that created David as a prototype would not keep an eye on his test with a human family; why the Gigolo Joe robot (Jude Law) likes 1940’s music and is in trouble with the law; why intelligent space aliens (I guess they are space aliens, they look like all the intelligent space aliens I’ve seen) would play such an important role in the movie;  why the peculiar  robot motorcyclists would have neon stripes on their leather jackets; why anti-robot activists would use robot motorcyclists in the first place; what Spielberg’s political prologue about global warming has to do with the rest of the story; why an intelligent robot would sit and “pray” to a plaster Coney Island figurine for so long; why cloned humans can only live one day; why a boy robot, designed to be as lifelike as possible would be able to act as a sophisticated telephone answering machine; why a humanoid robot would be damaged if it ate spinach; why, if it is not supposed to eat anything, would they program it so it could and why would it have a throat that feeds into delicate internal circuits; why Robin Williams, whose mediocre robotic movie (um, about a robot man who want to be a real man) “Bicentennial Man” was way better than this film, would voice one of the more corny characters.  These are not provocative, thoughtful questions to ponder. 

      This is not an intelligent movie, it is a conglomeration of used parts, tossed together like a device in the TV show “Junk Yard Wars”.   

     -- Pappy ( 2 out of 4 pops )

Talk about this film with other Popkorn Junkies

      Patsy ( 2 1/2 out of 4 pops )

      I liked "A.I." but it  just wasn't what I was expecting.  Maybe it's because I've seen "Bicentennial Man" and because I read and enjoyed the book "I, Robot" by Issac Asimov (from which "Bicentennial Man" was based I've heard).  I thought that "A.I" would be everything "Bicentennial Man" was not; I thought it would be a more intelligent and dramatic.  I thought "A.I." would be much better.  Anyway, overall the movie was ok.  I think Teddy was the best character, he was so cute!  I think Jude Law's character was totally skeezy-- I mean who would want to sleep with a greasy, cheesy, whore like him?  Ugh!  The film was a little long and a little boring...but because none of the ignorant teenagers that I was unfortunate enough to see the film with walked out I guess it must not have been that bad.  

      Liz ( 3 out of 4 pops )

      "A.I." is a movie about love, dreams, and desire - and the way that these things shape identity.  It's good.   It's very good until the ending begins and the question turns to The Meaning of Life.  The answer, it seems, is to experience one moment of happiness that you can then dream about forever.  Not much of an answer for those of us who aren't robots.  Too lofty a question?  Methinks it is.  Movie-makers don't seem to know what to do but grab at our little heartstrings and tug, tug, tug until we cry or starting puking up Velveeta, what with them shoving so much cheese down our throats. 

      James ( 4 out of 4 pops )

      I have been looking forward to "A.I." for a long time, and I wasn't disappointed.  The acting is great, the cinematography is great, the story is great, and it's a great movie.  My response to some of the issues that some reviewers have with the film:  First off, Teddy had more common sense than David because Teddy was older and AI machines learn through experience.  Second, the "things" at the end were NOT Aliens.  They were advanced mechas.  Jude Law (Gigolo Joe...Love that name!) says that "they are afraid because we are the future".  So you see, after 2000 years, the mechas were more advanced than David.  Third, David can act like an answering machine because he is a machine.  Steven Spielberg used the idea that global warming caused global flooding, because films are vehicles for the filmmaker's ideas.  If you want a movie without them, by all means, see Scary Movie 2 (which I too will see; I like to laugh).