A.I. Artificial Intelligence Reviews

La película es acerca de "la invisible red que une a todas las personas" (diálogo del personaje sexo sirviente). Lo que el creador de la serie de robots de David llama "el mayor defecto humano..."

Hay que entender algo en la peli. Si un robot puede simular un amor de forma tan genuina, que parece humano. Puede tener apariencia tan humana que sea indiferenciable con uno de verdad. Puede expresar sentimientos de socorro, dolor, tristeza, enojo, etc, que parecen genuinos... ¿Entonces qué significa ser humano en esta sociedad? La respuesta es: No significa nada. Porque si la actitud humana es rebajada a lo artificial. Si el amor es rebajado por la capacidad de poder ser simulado... ¿Entonces qué importa todo esto...?

El poder de auto consciencia humana no es discernible a nivel visible. Eso quiere decir que es "invisible". Sin embargo, existe una fachada que va relacionada a la auto consciencia. Eso es el cuerpo humano, sus actitudes, sus emociones, etc.
Cuando separas esa relación, entonces la fachada deja de significar algo, y por ende la auto consciencia difícilmente puede valorarse. Porque la forma de la auto consciencia es ahora banal. Entonces, en la película, los niños desprecian a David por ser artificial, mientras los que dicen "defender la vida" se divierten viendo figuras cuasi humanas siendo destrozadas solo por el hecho de ser hojalata y no identificarlas como vida. Al pasar esto sin embargo, la actitud, la apariencia, la expresión, es banalizada también para las personas. Si la máquina es tan indiferenciable de un humano, y solo por decirse "máquina", se empieza a volver motivo de desprecio, entonces ¿qué hace realmente que debas sentir aprecio por nada, si una etiqueta define lo que debes sentir por la fachada humana?
El personaje actuado por Jude Law, el sexo servidor, le dice a David al confrontarlo: "Sigues creyendo que ella te amará, pero no es así. Tu madre te quiere porque le brindas un servicio, así como yo brindo un servicio a las mujeres..." Las personas son ahora herramientas, intercambiables a martillos, tuercas y máquinas. Porque resulta que ahora es indiferenciable de una máquina. Lo que define "unión" es utilidad y servicio. Mucho se hace énfasis en "David quiere unir, fantasía con realidad"... Si la fachada, al ser despreciada se concluye en banalización de su interior. Entonces, aun si esta tiene en su interior un simple algoritmo mecánico, al final era más importante que fuese amado independiente a su servicio, aun si era máquina.

En la conclusión, pasan 2,000 años. Los humanos ya no existen, solo existen mecas avanzados creados por otros mecas que solo pueden anhelar tener propósito y por eso buscan los restos de lo que alguna vez solía ser humanidad. Lo importante es que, irónicamente, los restos de humanidad que hallan, no es un humano, es un robot. Pero aun así, el robot actúa tanto como humano, que termina siendo el reflejo mismo de lo que solía ser humano alguna vez.
Pasan dos cosas: El amor de David es un algoritmo, pero sí representa una realidad. La realidad de un padre que anhelaba volver a tener a su hijo fallecido de vuelta. Por otro lado, David, pide un último momento de ilusión con su madre. David obviamente le ama porque fue programado para eso, pero lo que cambió aquí, es que ahora su madre le ama de vuelta. Sin importar el interior, reconoce la humanidad en su fachada, y por eso es capaz de decir "te amo David, siempre te he amado". Eso es lo que hace que David pueda entrar al "mundo de los sueños". No ser reconocido como humano, si no poder haber sido amado. Si la madre de David le ama, significa que en lo más hondo de su interior, tuvo la capacidad de amar de verdad a un ser humano.

La madre de David en la secuencia final es la recolección su madre a partir de su memoria. O sea, es la materialización de ella a partir de las únicas pruebas de su existencia que quedan, dentro de él. Estas se agotan, por eso solo pueden ser 12 horas... Curiosamente, eso significa que David, sacrifica los restos de toda la humanidad solo para ese momento. Y en ese momento, para el cual fue sacrificado todo lo que quedó de humanidad; Así como David es la simulación de un niño humano que sí existió y del amor de un padre a él, se simula, con base en restos de realidad, la capacidad de su madre de poder amarlo, aun si solo era por unas pocas horas...

Si no queda claro. La película cimenta su final sobre su inicio. Esta empieza, con el dueño de la serie de máquinas de David preguntando "¿Acaso Dios creó a Adán para amarlo?". Su cuestionamiento surge, de la duda de si Dios ama a la humanidad. Ël no cree que lo haga, creó a la humanidad de forma aleatoria, no con amor. Pero en el final, no es David, la creación, el que debe probar amor a la raza creadora. Es el humano, demostrando su amor a la creación. De ese modo, demuestra un amor verdadero. Los humanos no somos Dios, pero existimos por amor. Lo mismo con la creación humana. La humanidad que ama, crea por amor, y por ello, en el paralelo mayor, así es como Dios ha creado.

Nice.

This is a very beautiful film. It blew me away. The film lacks depth, but I enjoyed it with just one viewing.

If I were to make a book on the greatest movies of Steven Spielberg, then A.I. would fit the pen-ultimate chapter. Why so? Because, to a vast majority, this is the last greatest film he directed, but to me, his second-last greatest with the last being The Terminal. (I may be in the minority here but I really like the film). After that, he directed a string of just OK films. Good, but not great, with one being one of the worst I've seen.

Anyway, A.I. is arguably one of the greatest heartbreaking films ever made and is a modern classic in the sci-fi genre. The story folds in a nice manner, with a good introduction and a heartbreaking ending, that will stay with you for a long time. The characters were very Spielberg-esque while the movie itself was very Kubrick-esque. No wonders and surprises there. However, I do have certain qualms: The humans and the Mecha's were portrayed in a very cliche and dog-tired manner. There was nothing unique, special or new in them. There was little or no understanding to the human characters and were mostly one-sided while the Mecha's, well, most were just "been there, done that". So, story-wise, the film was very strong but could've done better on the characters, giving them a much deeper depth. While the human world was shown in a restricted manner, the Mecha world was shown in a satisfactory style. Not wildly impressive, just satisfactory.

Despite the fact that the film runs on a decent, accepted speed, it actually comes to its true pace when David wakes up 2000 years into the future. Those 20-or-so minutes felt like they belonged to A.I. and it was a delight to watch!

Now, in the performances, I will point out 3. What ever happened to Haley-Joel Osment? He was billed as one of the best child-star, particularly due to his success on 6th Sense but I hardly hear about him now. I mean, he just vanished. Anyway, before he did, his performance as David truly won me over. You want real proof? Watch the scene in the forest with his mother. I've never seen such an emotion-filled performance by a child-actor. I guess I have to update my greatest criers in Hollywood list. A must-watch performance and it's bound to leave you impressed. Then we have Frances O' Connor as Monica, David's adoptive mother. Prior this film, I'd never heard or seen of her so it was a good surprise. I was impressed by her performance, too and she sure looks like a good candidate to my above mentioned list. Granted, she starts off slowly, kinda clunky, but quickly balances and stabilizes herself. A good performance to the very end. Then we have Jude Law as Gigolo Joe, a Mecha David befriends. Law is a fine actor and one look at his performance in this film, and Sky Captain, makes me think that he could've been times better should he had been in the 30's silent era of movies. Just like O' Connor, he starts off clunky, and goofish, but takes control of his character and stands on his feet. It was a good move on Spielberg's part to cast Law as Gigolo Joe. I can't think of any other better actor to portray him. Apart from the three mentioned, all the others were either fine, or plain decent, nothing too extraordinary. So, there you go!

In conclusion, despite the quite-cliched characters and stereotypical scenes, A.I. is a truly magnificent film that is supposed to be treasured for a long time. @Mr. Spielberg: How about another film like this?

9.5/10

Being a huge fan of Stanley Kubrick, I was really anxious about seeing this movie. Eventually, there were definitely many things to enjoy here. First of all, the whole thing looked great, something always expected when Steven Spielberg is directing. Furthermore, I was rather captivated by the story and the cast was pretty good (Haley Joel Osment, Frances O'Connor, Jude Law, William Hurt). But unfortunately, it wasn't really great after all, I'm afraid. Indeed, basically, you miss the Kubrick touch, which means going the extra mile into the human psyche making this movie a real masterpiece. Instead, they always remained in the Spielberg comfort zone, with some great visuals but also with a weak, over-sentimental fluffy story. Eventually, my mistake is that I went there expecting a Kubrick feature but I got a Spielberg movie so I guess it was rather unfair from me. It is like comparing '2001' and 'E.T.'. I mean, in my case, I think that 'E.T.' is a nice little movie but it never came near the level of such a masterpiece like '2001'. To conclude, I have to admit that even though I was rather disappointed, it remains a very well made and intriguing SF flick and it is definitely worth a look, especially if you like the genre.

Given the fact that this is a Spielberg film, the young protagonist's acting made it more super dramatic to watch. I really like Osment as a kid and how I wish he had stopped growing after seeing this. I'm really not into android films but this is an exception. Jude Law was good-looking. But he still sucks as an actor. Hahaha.

I highly enjoyed this film and the idea of it. It was much different from any other science fiction films I have seen, and I was greatly surprised. I enjoyed the film from beginning to end. Yes, it was a little off beat, and quite strange, but I personally highly enjoyed this one. Not one of Spielberg's best, but it is worth a watch.

"Please make me a real boy?"

Unfortunately, it seems that A.I. is Spielberg's weakest hour. But that's not to say that this Kubrick-style sci-fi production is bad; because the premise is excellent, but the film takes a few too many wrong turns.

A.I. is set many years into the future when the polar ice caps have melted and coastal cities are underwater. Presenting us with a dystopian vision of the future, we follow a group of scientists who develop highly advanced mechanoids. The science team decide that they should develop and design a robotic child with the ability to love.

The result produces an artificial child named David (Osment) who is adopted into a reluctant suburban family. David learns to love his "mother" Monica (O'Connor), but unforeseen consequences with David result in his abandonment. Being inspired by the story of Pinocchio, David sets out to find the Blue Fairy to make him a real child and put an end to the barriers between man and machine that caused the troubles in the first place.

The first half of the film sets everything up brilliantly; it's very well scripted and contains some highly creative concepts. But alas as things get too fanciful, long, and exceedingly more dull it results in this mediocre product.

Steven Spielberg's directing was superb like always and strong from start to finish. But despite this strong direction the film still suffers greatly into the second half like I previously stated.

The film holds a heavy reliance on the performance by young Osment. He is capable of establishing himself as a robot due to being emotionless at times. This is a rare case when the robotic nature of an actor is actually a positive. But then again it seems the filmmakers relied too heavily on Osment looking cute in order for us to empathise with him. But the biggest flaw in the film as a whole was the concluding 20 minutes. Not only are these final minutes highly unnecessary, but they're also just plain stupendous.

One of the film's strengths was in the fantastic score provided by none other than John Williams. Whenever he works with Spielberg he manages to produce some extraordinary tracks of music.

The visual effects are nothing but the finest in such an ambitious project. The mechanoids actually feel quite genuine and looked very impressive. Visually, the film is extremely eye-catching.

At the end of the day, A.I. is an extremely underwhelming film from one of the world's finest directors. It seemed that all the proper ingredients were present; good cast, legendary director, celebrated composer. But somewhere during the moviemaking method I feel that they lost the plot and ended up creating a highly average, albeit visually impressive film. Robin Williams, Chris Rock and Meryl Streep appear uncredited for use of their voices.