I saw A.I. last night and agree with Rob. It should have ended several times (although I think of Tombstone when I think of movies that had too many climaxes, not Godzilla). The first ending was pretty straightforward, but had you thinking. Then the second ending came right out and explained it for those that may have missed it the first time around. Some accounts have a third ending too, but I only counted two.

That said, I did enjoy it. Teddy was amazing.

For those interested, you can read the short-story that A.I. is based on, Super-Toys Last All Summer Long by Brian Aldiss.

Ray Kurzweil would love this, wouldn't he?

The further the distance between "now" and my viewing of this movie, the more I dislike it. At the time, I thought it was OK and was at least visually impressive, but at the moment I can only remember one scene that I really enjoyed.

Actually, to be fair, most scenes with Jude Law were good.

I thought Teddy was only marginally better at keeping the kids awake (including me) than Jar-Jar Binks. I kept thinking I was watching a cough syrup commercial when he was on.

I haven't made it to the movie yet though I plan on going tommorow night.

I read this a week or two ago. Very Weird. I found the personal webpage taking place 30 years from now before finding the explanation. Can't remember how but there was some confusion on my end. Unfortunatly I hadn't discovered time travel as I had suspected orginally.

No my friend, time travel is for those who don't have a problem with locking their past/future selves in closets when the need arises.

Well, I've seen the movie. I enjoyed it.

Although Teddy reminded me of the cough syrup commercial I have to say that while I found Jar-Jar Binks to be incredibly annoying, I was suckered into liking Teddy. he was my favorite character.

I also counted 2 spots where the movie could have ended.

"the greatest e-zine in the world." is that irony?

No Alanis, that, if it is anything (and it may not be), is sarcasm.

I think the meanest thing anyone has said about AI is that Teddy was the best character.

Two points:

1. Teddy is cool because despite being cute and cuddly, he is the antithesis to the typical sidekick character in contemporary children's movies (e.g. Donkey in Shrek, Jar-Jar Binks in The Phantom Menace or that Rosie O'Donnell ape in Tarzan); he's not some fast-talking, incompetent character. If you want to compare him to a Star Wars character, compare him to Obi Wan in A New Hope.

2. Sarcasm is a form of irony, Ethan. Look it up.

I'm not saying Teddy isn't cool, I'm just saying that it's a sad commentary on the movie that many people like him better than the "actual" characters. I would tend to agree, except Jude Law was good I thought.

It would take a complete moron to get an animated teddy bear wrong, and Spielberg isn't a complete moron.

Teddy is actually R2-D2.

Isn't the fact that many people liked him better sorta fitting with the theme of the movie?

I must say i like the film. Wasn't blown away by it, and it had a lot of flaws, but i thought it was good.

It seemed to have the worst of the two directors responsable for it though - combining all of Kubrick's treating of charecters as an afterthough to the point (Eyes Wide Shut being the best example), with Spielberg's obsession with special effects over story (Jurassic Park).

Well, if we want to start splitting hairs, Teddy is actually Jiminy Cricket.

R2D2 also came to mind, but the reason why I say Obi Wan is because a) Teddy can talk (Artoo only beeps); b) Teddy is not funny (Artoo always gets into wacky trouble and has that crazy scream); c) Teddy is a kind of mentor for David (Artoo is a servant).

That last point is the key one because if you agree with me that Teddy is Jiminy Cricket, and take into consideration the fact that Jiminy Cricket is Pinnochio's conscience, then you should agree that that is exactly what Obi Wan does, first by training Luke into the Jedi ways, and then by becoming a voice of reason inside Luke's head after he (Obi Wan) is killed by Vader.
Yes, no?

Also, i would like to say, that this movie reminded me how powerful the word "Mommie" is.

Or maybe i'm just a sucker, and was in a weird emotional state when i saw it.

It might be powerful, but I don't think repitition in itself gives something impact. I think someone should count how many times "mommy" is said, screeched, whined, cried in the movie.

bacon-man makes a good point (note how I am not ignoring you).

Watching a CBC tribute to the late Mordecai Richler, his son Noah, now the Literary Editor of the National Post, told an annecdote that may be pertinent.

Noah had written a long and racy love letter to his girlfriend with the help of some wine, which he then spilt on the letter. He spread the pages out on the stairs to dry and fell asleep. When his father came home and found the letter, he told his son that he had used the word 'Fuck' four times and that it would be more powerful if he used it only once.

Thanks Steve. But it was more of a comment on things at AOV. (We all remember the Yada welcoming) It wasn't a complaint.

Sorry.. That still sounded negative.

"Steven Spielberg doesn't make art, he makes things that make money."

Matthew Haughey at a whole lotta nothing.

Same can go with James Cameron

That quote from Matthew Haughey is bullshit. Just because he didn't like the ending of A.I. and the bookends of Saving Private Ryan, it doesn't mean that Spielberg is not an artist. Sure he takes missteps, but most filmmakers do.

And just because he's popular and makes films that millions of people watch and like doesn't necessarily make him some sort of sellout to the masses. Generally he makes good films and they just happen to connect with more people. One review of A.I. compared him to Dickens. I haven't really read any Dickens (bad me), but it sounds like a fair comparison.

Finally, if you read Haughey's full entry on Spielberg, you will see a part where he describes the ending of The Usual Suspects as directed by Spielberg. It's actually pretty lame because The Usual Suspects is not exactly great art. It has very little to say about anything and its ending is a cheat. Unlike M. Night Shyamalan's last two films, there are no good hints as to what the surprise ending is. As a result, the ending is not natural—it's just tacked on.

Don't get me wrong, though, I liked The Usual Suspects despite its ending. But I could say the same for A.I.

Dr.Baconite - i know, it lost affect as the film wore on, but the first time the boy/robot said it, the whole scene sent chills down my spin, especially considering how much he acted like a robot up to that point.

I've never been a fan of Haley Osmet (sp?), but he fit this role perfectly, and pulled it off - no easy task.

"One review of A.I. compared him to Dickens. I haven't really read any Dickens (bad me), but it sounds like a fair comparison.

So you'd be basing your opinion on what?

Any one here see the Movie "Kiss of the Dragon."?
This movie was surely high-art. Martial Arts movies are generally the least realistic of the always intelligent Action genre but this one was really bad. The secretly bad cops continually blowing up things in public. The Karate room scene. I loved it.

"So you'd be basing your opinion on what?"

I am basing my opinion on the fact that, like Spielberg, Dickens's work was hugely popular among a large cross-section of people in his time. As I understand it, in his time the critics favourably looked upon him as an entertainer. In our time, however, Dickens's work is not only acknowledged by critics as rousing entertainment, but as high art (see Shakespeare for another example). I know that without ever having read one of his books.

I have, however, seen some films based upon his novels. Great Expectations (1998) comes to mind as well as Oliver! (1968). The former is okay, but the latter is one of the hardest to watch Best Picture Academy Award winners that I have ever seen. Planet of the Apes was robbed that year.

The best Dickens film adaptation that I have ever seen has to be Mickey's Christmas Carol.