Concerning A.I the movie

[Romão 2,274]

I rewatched it yesterday, and I honestly don't get why some people say it's the worse movie they've ever seen.

I think the movie is an absolute masterpeice (as is the score), and I don't expect everyone to agree with me. Buit to say this movie is awful and an utter waste of time is beyond me. To some people the movie may not seem brilliant as it did with me, but nowhere is it near of being one of the worse of all time. That's plain, simple, unfair exageration.

[Hector J. Guzman 1]

I know. I did like it. And it has its flaws, but it is certanly not a bad movie. Very touching, really. Beautiful score by Johnny boy, the song breaks my heart, brings memories of the WTC attacks (I saw it the day after that), and the song 'cause I got the CD a week before I learned about my friend's death

[Wickenstein 0]

It is a masterpiece! I'd say more about it, but I'm almost tired of defending it from everybody who thinks it's so bad.

[Hector J. Guzman 1]

You're right, it gets a little tired with these folks that bash it, that I just skip those commetaries

[King Mark 3,631]

Well here,it's mostly JoeinAr that hates it and keeps brigning it up,and Ricard "dislikes" it.

K.M.Who loves AI,the movie and score.

[Ricard 2,245]

Merkel said:

I rewatched it yesterday, and I honestly don't get why some people say it's the worse movie they've ever seen.

Hmm.. You don't have to get why some people have a different opinion. In fact, it's practically impossible that we understand why each other has a different opinion about this, or any movie/score, etc.

Quote

I think the movie is an absolute masterpeice (as is the score), and I don't expect everyone to agree with me.

Good!

Quote

Buit to say this movie is awful and an utter waste of time is beyond me.

As I said before, it's perfectly normal that we don't understand why others have a different opinion.

Quote

To some people the movie may not seem brilliant as it did with me, but nowhere is it near of being one of the worse of all time. That's plain, simple, unfair exageration.

How on earth can you say that someone else's opinion is an exaggeration?. It's NOT your opinion!

[Ricard 2,245]

Wickenstein said:

It is a masterpiece!  I'd say more about it, but I'm almost tired of defending it from everybody who thinks it's so bad.

Hhmm... You DON'T "have" to defend it from those who think it's bad! We ACCEPT that you LOVE the movie! Can't you accept that we dislike it/hate it?

[Ricard 2,245]

Hector J. Guzman said:

You're right, it gets a little tired with these folks that bash it, that I just skip those commetaries

It doesn't get tired with you guys that love it. I like reading your commentaries, altough I don't share your opinion

[Ricard 2,245]

king mark said:

Well here,it's mostly JoeinAr that hates it and keeps brigning it up,and Ricard "dislikes" it.

I think JoeinAr is entitled to bring this up as much as he wants (like everyone else). Keep in mind that he (we) are part of a minority (at least in this forum), regarding A.I.. If those who love the movie can't accept that we have a different opinion, what else have we got?

[Rogue_Leader 2]

Well I think most people know how much I hate this movie by now so I won't go into it I just hope that Spielberg does right with Indy 4.

-Rogue Leader who still thinks the whole "bring em back for a day" business is the dumbest plot concept in movie history.

[Morn 8]

I like it a lot, and I shall defend it till death

[PetePan 163]

this is a unique thread, with four replies in a row from Ricard!

[Guest]

What I'm sure is that I think this movie just stinks. I don't know if it's a "waste of time" or whatever else, I just know it stinks, it's very bad directed, the dialogs are pityful, the only good actor is Osment, and the music is better on a CD than in the movie.

But, of course, it's just my opinion (even if I deeply think that there is a Truth and that the Truth is : AI SUCKS !!!

[Mr. Breathmask 555]

The big problem with A.I. is just the third part.

The first part is real Spielberg magic. Happy faces, idyllic family situations. Wonderful.

The second part is incredible. The moment David is dropped, the tone shifts to a dark, cynical one. The Flesh Fair and Rouge City are amazing.

But then, at the end, when David reaches New York, the story slows down. It's like they were busy writing it, and then suddenly have to make an ending. David's underwater adventure is just too slow to my liking, and those last fifteen minutes seem to go on forever, giving you the feeling that that was a much bigger part of the movie than it actually was. That is why most people, when they left the theater, felt the movie sucked. The ending is so crucial to a movie, and here the ending was just not good enough.

Nevertheless, I still think it's a great movie. It has so many cool things in it. The thing I like most is the fact that no robot blinks. EVER. That's cool. But it's just the third part that, to most people, killed the movie.

Marc, who has proof the ending is the most crucial part of a movie, because he knows someone who says LotR: FotR sucks, because "The ending didn't make any sense", not knowing he was watching the first part of a trilogy. :roll:

[Morn 8]

The ending was fine. It wasn't slow, but then I have quite a lot of tolerance for slowness. The music was brilliant. And it was very moving.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Sorry KM, I don't hate the film, I dislike it intensly.

It is the worst Spielberg film to me. But even the worst Spielberg film is better than alot out there.

My main gripe is the few of you who try to put it on the same pedestal as E.T., Jaws, CE3k, and Raiders. It is not recongnised in general among those films and I doubt it ever will be.

For those of you who love this film and think its a masterpiece, have what you will, I am glad for you. Although I will suspect your taste, you like whatever you want.

[UCFKevin 0]

I loved this movie as well. I thought it was incredibly well done. The plot was hackneyed and basically a ripoff of Pinocchio but it doesn't act like it's not following the same storyline, it basically admits it. The acting is superb, the music is gorgeous, the special effects are absolutely flawless...

The ending, which most people hate.....I loved it. Every bit of it. I don't care if it's too Spielbergian or anything like that. People who say that Spielberg ruined the film with that ending are GROSSLY incorrect because Kubrick himself wrote the ending, YES, the far off future ending, so if anyone blames Spielberg for it, they clearly just want to blame him for something for some reason or another.

[Morn 8]

Kubrick's original ending was slightly different though. The movie was to end with david watching monica die rather than dieing with her.

[Guest]

A.I. was an all right movie. It was no classic Spielberg flick like Raiders or CE3K, but it was pretty good. I thought the eye candy was very nice (even though a bit trashy at times). The music really carried the movie, for me. If it hadn't been for "Stored Memories", "Reunion", or "Where Dreams Come True", A.I. wouldn't be as enjoyable with the "E.T." (no relation to the movie) ending. (Although I thought the way the aliens had taken the snow and made a network of perfectly-plowed alleys in the snow was pretty neat, having all their little "digs" at various heights in the snow walls).

I wish Minority Report could look more like this film than what it does. But I haven't seen the complete movie, so I might come away liking the MR world better than AI.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Those weren't E.T.'s they were super mecha's. That point ruined the film for me.

[Morn 8]

Why Joe?

And AI is superior to Ce3k. Which I think has an aimless plot and so-so characters. But it's still very enjoyable. It's a match for Raiders as well, which is technically the best Indy, but I just don't find it as much fun as the other 2.

[Guest]

And AI is superior to Ce3k. Which I think has an aimless plot and so-so characters. But it's still very enjoyable. It's a match for Raiders as well, which is technically the best Indy, but I just don't find it as much fun as the other 2.

So, in other words, Morn, if it's directed by Spielberg, you'll be a happy camper, regardless of how good/bad the movie is?

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Why Joe?

And AI is superior to Ce3k. Which I think has an aimless plot and so-so characters. But it's still very enjoyable. It's a match for Raiders as well, which is technically the best Indy, but I just don't find it as much fun as the other 2.

because they couldn't have evolved on their own. They were machines not real beings.

And CE3K is too me a far superior film. It is so underappreciated on this board, which is too bad. Morn, its not aimless, its about a man who starts to lose his mind because he cannot forget and or focus his thoughts on what he saw. Dryfuss gave his two best performances ever in 1977. Goodbye Girl is the other.

Joe.

[Morn 8]

because they couldn't have evolved on their own. They were machines not real beings.

We are all machines. Tell me why those machines couldn't have created other machines? David and gigolo joe acted like they were capable of far more and had higher thought than what was needed for their job.

And CE3K is too me a far superior film. It is so underappreciated on this board, which is too bad. Morn, its not aimless, its about a man who starts to lose his mind because he cannot forget and or focus his thoughts on what he saw. Dryfuss gave his two best performances ever in 1977. Goodbye Girl is the other.

Yes... but AI is about much much more. Ce3k lacks a good ending and an extremely involving story. Running after aliens is pretty much what most of the film was. Which is pretty aimless. And the end with him going to live with the aliens? Why? What is the point of us seeing that? Anyway, it was still quite a very good film, but there were some problems with it.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Ce3k lacks a good ending and an extremely involving story.

I think I am having a heart attack. Close Encounters has the most uplifting ending. Roy goes with the aliens, and Barry is reunited with Gillian. And the most gorgeous spaceship ever filmed rises up out of site to some of John's most spectacular music.

Ok, I am better now. Close Encounters

[Figo 2]

Add my name to the list of people who thought "A.I." absolutely sucked ass. Sorry, Morn, "CE3K" is only one of the four best films Spielberg ever made.

[Ricard 2,245]

And AI is superior to Ce3k. Which I think has an aimless plot and so-so characters.

My thoughts are exactly the opposite

[Ricard 2,245]

Yes... but AI is about much much more.

A.I. is SUPPOSEDLY about much much more. That's the problem.

Ce3k lacks a good ending and an extremely involving story.

Running after aliens is pretty much what most of the film was.

You missed the whole movie, Morn

[Uni 306]

All right....this seems as good a place as any to drop my comments on A.I., something I was planning on doing shortly anyway. As usual, given my time crunch and finances, I'm waaaay behind the times when it comes to the JW Experience (AOTC was a rare exception). At long last, I finally saw A.I. for the first time the other night (ordered it on PPV), then watched it again, with my wife this time, a couple of evenings later. I've had to spend a year avoiding spoiler-ridden posts and discussions on the movie - something that has frustrated me to no end - and now at last I can finally throw my own battered hat into the pile filling center ring. (It's probably not necessary, given that this whole thread has dipped pretty liberally into the story, but it's become customary policy to forewarn of plot giveaways before going any further. Just in case.)

As the film began, I was ready for anything....ready to love it, ready to be dourly disappointed, ready to experience any one of the wide range of reactions expressed by the frequenters of this forum - or maybe even something new. So what did I think? :roll:

I thought it was wonderful. I was captivated from the first scene on, for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, this is a film that challenged me to think, not just intellectually but morally and ethically, and that alone earns high marks any day of the week. I was enthralled by visuals that were as extraordinary as any I've seen (there is a major difference between CGI painting an entire landscape before our eyes and having it inserted into landscape with which we're already familiar). The performances were outstanding - for the most part, anyway. I think Monica was misplayed to some degree, and that did a bit to undermine the emotional hub of the story. But Jude Law found a part that was his for the taking and creating, and he made a secondary character as fascinating and compelling as anything in the story. And as far as I'm concerned, Haley Joel Osment can do anything he sets his mind to. I was already sold on him in The Sixth Sense; here he hit a mark that few adult actors could find, the ability to navigate a set of dramatic circumstances that were stacked against him from the beginning (the movie's central question - can a human love a robot back - was answered early on, leaving him to weave a new premise for himself). William Hurt found just the right note for the scientist whose stands cheerful and exultant in the face of his own unwitting betrayal, having not searched the ultimate ramifications of his experimenting; it would have been easier and less responsible to portray this character as a cold corporate type interested only in making money.

I loved the poetic and symbolic mode of both the visuals and the screenplay. This was one of those movies that's almost a new experience the second time around, as we catch the setup of significant symbols we didn't understand or remember upon the initial viewing. Countless threads are spun out and reattached later, and each time I heard or saw a significant line or image repeated, I nodded my head and grinned. Some people find this technique redundant and trite; if done well (and I think it was here), I find it exhilarating. Stories just aren't told like this often enough any more. We've come to look for pure action or simple character observation in our films, and I think we've lost something in Hollywood's near inability to awe us with storytelling style.

Still, I could easily see why people were polarized on the topic of this film. This is the sort of story that will draw a certain sort of person; anyone hoping for the simple magic of E.T. or looking for sheer entertainment will be at best disappointed, at worst repelled, by its fablistic qualities. It's the difference between the old, forgotten fairy tales and nursery rhymes and their newer, Disneyized manifestations. Despite their children's-fantasy packaging, stories like this were once written to express fairly deep philisophical conundrums, and they didn't always opt for the happy ending or pat answer. They often left the story unfinished, leaving the reader to work out the issues on their own. (Nowadays, especially in America, anything less than a happy ending leaves the audience unsatisfied and usually in a foul mood.)

That's the direction the movie was taking as the second act came to a close. This would have been just that sort of fable's conclusion if the end credits started to roll after the camera pulled away from David's underwater captivity (anyone else notice the ol' Spielbergian ferris wheel mishap?), and I would have been satisfied if the film had ended there. It would have opened up an entirely new venue of thought concerning David's programmed desires, and would have answered very differently the question of his wishes coming true (though I daresay it would not have done any more to mollify those who already disliked the film). But Kubirck being who he was, that's not how it ended, which brings us to the divisive issue of the third act.

This part really made me think, and I'll confess that not all my thoughts were positive. While I'm a sucker for grand-scale sci-fi business like this, and though I thought the aliens looked really cool, the story took such a jarring left turn that I was sure to wear a neckbrace the second time through. There were compelling moments here, and a few more interesting questions arose, but ultimately the last act doesn't work. After considering it for a while, I think I figured out why (at least for me).

The format, look, and feel of the film to this point struck me as reminiscent of fantasy on several literary levels, at least three of which took the fore: The Quest, Fairy Tale and High Romance. Now, there's nothing wrong with taking several approaches like this - as long as each is fulfilled properly. Unfortunately, none of them were. Each had a fatal flaw that undermined its success and resulted in a very awkward ending.

Take the story as a Quest, for instance. It fell short because the essential purpose of relating such a story is for us to follow the deeds (and misdeeds) of the heroes all the way to the journey's fulfillment, to see how the ends they reach justify their means. Here, the hero reaches a stopping point - and then waits while the end of the Quest is brought to him. We don't see him overcoming; we see him overcome, and then given all the answers anyway. No fair. We're all subconsciously familiar enough with the millieu of the Quest for this to come across as cheating, and somehow we just can't buy it.

The context of Fairy Tales is fraught with magic, and when we enter that arena we're told to leave our disbelief at the door. Most often we'll concede, and from that point we'll gladly believe whatever we're told, no matter how unrealistic the circumstances. The rules are just different in Faery; here the most insurmountable problems can be solved by the most incredible creatures by the simple waving of a wand. However, the Blue Fairy in A.I. fails the test for the very reason that the answer doesn't come by magical means. Any wish-granting that requires a two-thousand year waiting period and the intervention of alien lifeforms has to be highly suspect. We can see the strings being pulled by the man behind the curtain. It's a botched coin trick. We'll believe in pure magic, yes, but mishandled slight-of-hand is another story entirely.

That leaves High Romance - which suffers nothing for the fact that the protagonist's true love was his mother. The genre pivots on a single person being the object of all the hero's desires. Good enough for me. However....I don't think it's too much to ask that at least one of the participants be the real deal. Here we have an artificial being pursuing the love of his very real mother....and what does he get? An even more artificial version of his mother, a woman who looks half drunk in her inability to show any authentic reaction to the events that have been crucial in the development of her son. And I completely agree with Rogue Leader, who cried foul at the whole "bring em back for a day" business. This is plot manipulation working overtime. Better to just make a clone, who will last long enough for the warranty to expire and who can eventually be taught to love in return (given the fact that there's no one else around to love, if nothing else).

So if the third act was such a dud (which it was, despite all the nifty graphics and a few more of those promising symbols thrown in), why did I love the film so much? Good question. I guess the rest of it was so good, a sour ending couldn't even spoil it. Regardless of how the story stumbles on its way to the finish line, the questions it asks (even though it gets the answers wrong for itself) were compelling enough to linger, and have stayed with me in the interrim. What Kubrick forgot, and Spielberg in his stead, I suppose, is that some of these questions are in their finest form when the solutions elude us. In spite of what the alien said, that's the truest demonstration of our genius: that those answers we can't find in the back of the book motivate us to search them out for ourselves, to expand our thinking and to grow to whatever extent will allow us to come to that essential realization. That's what makes us who we are. David started out on that path; it would have been nice to see him grow beyond his programming to find some of those answers for himself. But that was the storyteller's choice, and I for one am no less satisfied that I got to hear the story, regardless of how it ended.

- Uni

[tpigeon 3]

well then Ricard, i know you may have explained this before, but why do you tihnk it's so bad? i don't intend on getting into this argument but from people who don't like the film (or any film), all i want to know is why. so if you wouldn't mind.....

[Ollie 1,059]

CE3k is one of Speilberg's best films. I agree that Dreyfuss gave one of his best perfromances, in fact the whole movie was cast perfectly. The ending of CE3K moves me to tears much like E.T. still does after all these years. Everything from Williams score to the visual effects makes this film one of the best films of all time. It's a shame that Williams had to go against himself for best score (Star Wars) because CE3K deserved an Oscar as well. How can anyone not feel for Neary and his obsession of trying to figure out the images of Devils Tower and the effect it takes on his personal life?

As for A.I., while not the same level of Steven's earlier films, still manages to make me cry. Hell it made my 14 year old daughter and 12 year old son cry as well. I think A.I. does have some flawed moments but it still is a beautiful and touching film. David's obsession with his mother's love is both disturbing and touching. Jude Law gives a fine performance and Williams score is both haunting and beautiful. Sometimes you have to overlook a films flaws to see it's true meaning and that's what I did with A.I.

[King Mark 3,631]

A.I ,however flawed it is,is still a far more ambitious film ANY other director would attempt to make.

K.M.

[Ricard 2,245]

well then Ricard, i know you may have explained this before, but why do you tihnk it's so bad? i don't intend on getting into this argument but from people who don't like the film (or any film), all i want to know is why. so if you wouldn't mind.....

Essentially because the SCREENPLAY* (the MOST important part in a movie) is terribly flawed from beginning to end, the actors are mediocre and the characters are not well developed (one of the them is even futile).

To me, A.I. is NOT one of the worst movies ever, but it IS Spielberg's worst film. I give it a 1/10 (because it has some good musical moments).

*Screenplay does NOT equal Story.

[Morn 8]

Any wish-granting that requires a two-thousand year waiting period and the intervention of alien lifeforms has to be highly suspect. We can see the strings being pulled by the man behind the curtain. It's a botched coin trick. We'll believe in pure magic, yes, but mishandled slight-of-hand is another story entirely.

Evolved mecha not aliens, that avoids it seeming like a coin trick.

And I completely agree with Rogue Leader, who cried foul at the whole "bring em back for a day" business. This is plot manipulation working overtime.

Well, I think the mecha made that part up to try and convince David to abandon his search for monica. It didn't work, they were forced to simulate (but I doubt clone) monica for him. Therefore I don't see it as that contrived.

That's what makes us who we are. David started out on that path; it would have been nice to see him grow beyond his programming to find some of those answers for himself

Maybe one of the points of the story is that it's very hard to grow beyond instinct?

Essentially because the SCREENPLAY* (the MOST important part in a movie) is terribly flawed from beginning to end, the actors are mediocre and the characters are not well developed (one of the them is even futile).

I don't agree that it's flawed, why is character developement a requirement for a movie to be good? It had a lot to make up for a lack of it. Actors? I agree with uni on that.

[Ricard 2,245]

A.I ,however flawed it is,is still a far more ambitious film ANY other director would attempt to make.

I don't agree. A.I. may be an ambitious film, but compared to mainstream Hollywood directors ONLY.

And in this particular case, that ambition becomes its main flaw, because it doesn't manage to get where it's supposed to. Therefore the disaster becomes still more apparent.

[Wickenstein 0]

It is a masterpiece!  I'd say more about it, but I'm almost tired of defending it from everybody who thinks it's so bad.

Hhmm... You DON'T "have" to defend it from those who think it's bad! We ACCEPT that you LOVE the movie! Can't you accept that we dislike it/hate it?

If there's one person you should be saying that to, I would not be it. How about all the people who will immediately jump at the chance to say how much the starwars movie and AI sucked? I don't see you going after them saying, "Accept that others like it." You know why you don't? Because that's the point of a message board! We start a topic and people give their opinions! The fact is, I do accept that some people don't like it. There is a reason I give my opinion on things. If enough people say something, people tend to automatically assume it's the truth. I'm trying to offer a counter-point so that maybe someone who, for instance, hasn't seen AI will watch it with an open mind instead of automatically dismissing it.

In the end, at least I had something positive to say. That's better than most people offer. Rather than saying, "It sucked," I would have merely said, "I didn't like this movie. Here's why...."

Sincerely,

Andrew

[Hector J. Guzman 1]

[Ricard 2,245]

I don't agree that it's flawed, why is character developement a requirement for a movie to be good?

It is an essential aspect in a good movie. If characters are not well developed, then the SCRIPT has to be VERY GOOD. Which is not the case of A.I., in my opinion.

[Ricard 2,245]

If there's one person you should be saying that to, I would not be it.

I don't see why not. You say you try to defend A.I. from those who think it's bad. I think that "defending" a movie from a minority that dislikes it is futile and absurd.

How about all the people who will immediately jump at the chance to say how much the starwars movie and AI sucked?  I don't see you going after them saying, "Accept that others like it."  

I don't have any problem with people expressing their opinions. However, THIS particular thread is NOT about how good is A.I.. It's about how WRONG are those who think it's bad. That kind of approach is illogical and unfair, in my opinion.

I'm trying to offer a counter-point so that maybe someone who, for instance, hasn't seen AI will watch it with an open mind instead of automatically dismissing it.

Wickenstein, I don't think that people will "automatically" dismiss or love a movie just because they read it's good or it sucked. And I don't want to think you're assuming that those who disliked AI didn't watch it with an open mind.

In the end, at least I had something positive to say.  That's better than most people offer.  Rather than saying, "It sucked," I would have merely said, "I didn't like this movie.  Here's why...."

I accept and respect as much an opinion stated in one sentence (like "this movie sucks") as a one-page review of the same film.

[Guest]

Wow, I find it amazing that so many people who love movies and even, maybe, love Spielberg movies, have missed the point of A.I. so much. So many of the people that don't like it complain about this and that, but they never talk about that fact that the point of the movie was to make people think! Just based on the amount of discussion that's been done on this site already about it, maybe the movie may actually be having the affect it was supposed to. Great art always stirs up conversation. We should be thankful that things like A.I. are actually being funded with Hollywood dollars instead of another Battlefield Earth! It's just too bad so many people missed the point.

[Ricard 2,245]

Wow, I find it amazing that so many people who love movies and even, maybe, love Spielberg movies, have missed the point of A.I. so much.

It's just too bad so many people missed the point.

See what I mean?

[JoeinAR 1,949]

Great art always stirs up conversation.  It's just too bad so many people missed the point.

Please, calling A.I. great art is rediculous. This is not art in no way shape or for.

It is craft and not at the highest level.

On an acting level, Law was good, Osment was average, and O'conner was terrible.

The script was hackneed and convoluted.

The story was long and unbearable

Technically the film was very good. But most Spielberg films are very good technically.

The direction was not sure and true.

And if there is a point, what is it. The movie was long and pointless to me.

But if you like it fine. Just don't call it art. Dont put it with Spielbergs best because its not. It is not the equal of Jaws, Close Encounters, Raiders, ET, Schindlers List, Jurassic Park, Sugarland Express, Color Purple, Empire of the Sun, Temple of Doom, Last Crusade, Lost World, Always, Hook, SPR, Amistad, 1941. It isn't better than them either.

Joe, who just reiterated a previous post, because of that assinine statement about great art.

[Morn 8]

It is an essential aspect in a good movie. If characters are not well developed, then the SCRIPT has to be VERY GOOD. Which is not the case of A.I., in my opinion.

I thought it was very good. It was a very interesting and unique story that touched many subjects, that to me made up for the lack of developement.

On an acting level, Law was good, Osment was average, and O'conner was terrible.

Nope, Osment was great, Law was very good, O'conner was average.

The script was hackneed and convoluted.

The plot is not really the point of the film, but it wasn't a bad plot for sure. I don't think it was that convoluted.

The story was long and unbearable

That didn't bother me, I don't mind long films.

[Wickenstein 0]

I think that "defending" a movie from a minority that dislikes it is futile and absurd.  

Interestingly enough, I always thought those who actually liked AI were the minority report. If anything, those who hated AI are usually the more vocal half. That's why people feel the need on this thread to state the opposite.

I don't have any problem with people expressing their opinions. However, THIS particular thread is NOT about how good is A.I.. It's about how WRONG are those who think it's bad. That kind of approach is illogical and unfair, in my opinion.

The thread was never about how wrong other people were. The thread was about why others didn't like it.

I honestly don't get why some people say it's the worse movie they've ever seen.

I think the movie is an absolute masterpeice (as is the score), and I don't expect everyone to agree with me. Buit to say this movie is awful and an utter waste of time is beyond me.

This thread almost invites people who didn't like it to give some reasons why they didn't like it, not to trash their opinion.

Wickenstein, I don't think that people will "automatically" dismiss or love a movie just because they read it's good or it sucked. And I don't want to think you're assuming that those who disliked AI didn't watch it with an open mind.  

Oh yes they will. People are very influenced by opinions. Word of mouth is why a lot of movies are either tank or become successfull. Maybe you or I don't succumb to this, but a lot of others do.

I wasn't assuming those who didn't like AI didn't have an open mind. I'm sure you and many others on this board were not close minded while watching it. However, I'm stil willing to bet that's why some didn't like it. Case in point, I heard how terrible Fight Club was and never saw it in the theaters. I watched it a couple of years ago and now it's in my top ten favorite films of all time. I'll give a better example: I had heard from a lot of people that I respected that 2001 was a very bad movie. I watched it and agreed with them. It wasn't until I started poking around some fan websites that I finally "Got" what the movie was about. Again, that movie is now in my top ten favorites. One opinion influenced me one way, another opinion influenced me another way.

Opinion does matter. I understand it is better to make your own decision. Sometimes what other people think can have good and bad influences though. That's what other people are trying to do here: point out the good and the bad things that other people missed.

I accept and respect as much an opinion stated in one sentence (like "this movie sucks") as a one-page review of the same film.

I'll accept a one sentence opinion, but I sure won't respect it as much as a full page review. I put more stock in someone who can come up with reasons for their feelings. Hey, like I said, I'll accept these statements without comment, but I won't respect and value them as much as others.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

The thing is movie enjoyment is based on personal preferences and personal tastes.

Wickenstein and I have very different tastes.

He likes A.I. and Fight Club.

I dislike both films, for very different reasons, though both involve the endings.

But there is an undlying tone in alot of the people who like A.I., perhaps even Fight Club that "they" got it. That "we" missed the point. As if "we" are inferior and less intelligent because "we" didn't get it. Superiority doesn't happen because one likes movie. This kind of intellectual snobbing is not very appropriate or appreciated.

[Guest]

"I had heard from a lot of people that I respected that 2001 was a very bad movie. I watched it and agreed with them. It wasn't until I started poking around some fan websites that I finally "Got" what the movie was about."

This is exactly what I think happens with A.I. I don't really think it's a movie most people would watch and love in just one viewing. However, it becomes more and more interesting the more you think about it. Then, in subsequent viewings, you get deeper into the themes of the film and start to discover all the interesting ideas that are actually under the surface. Like the above mentioned 2001, A.I. is not a movie that can acurately be love or dismissed in just 1 or two viewings, at least not by most viewers. I think time is going to be very kidn to A.I., like it has been to other films like 2001 or Vertigo.

[Morn 8]

Exactly, don't assume it's superiority joe.

[Ricard 2,245]

Interestingly enough, I always thought those who actually liked AI were the minority report.

Not in this message board.

If anything, those who hated AI are usually the more vocal half.

I think it's exactly the opposite.

The thread was never about how wrong other people were.  The thread was about why others didn't like it.

Apparently we have different perceptions of the same words...

This thread almost invites people who didn't like it to give some reasons why they didn't like it.

I don't think this thread even *tries* (and if it does, it fails misserably) to invite people to give some reasons why they didn't like the film. Furthermore, some of the comments made here regarding those who dislike the movie are provocative and insulting.

People are very influenced by opinions.  Word of mouth is why a lot of movies are either tank or become successfull.  Maybe you or I don't succumb to this, but a lot of others do.

And you want these people to see A.I., right? Well, perhaps you're not doing them a big favor...

I wasn't assuming those who didn't like AI didn't have an open mind. However, I'm stil willing to bet that's why some didn't like it.

I'm sorry, and I'm sure you don't agree, but I still find this attitude highly insulting.

Case in point, I heard how terrible Fight Club was and never saw it in the theaters.  I watched it a couple of years ago and now it's in my top ten favorite films of all time.  

Good

I'll give a better example:  I had heard from a lot of people that I respected that 2001 was a very bad movie.  I watched it and agreed with them.  It wasn't until I started poking around some fan websites that I finally "Got" what the movie was about.  Again, that movie is now in my top ten favorites.  One opinion influenced me one way, another opinion influenced me another way.

OK, but that didn't happen because other people were trying to convince you that you were wrong. And if that was the case, I'd find their attitude equally reprehensible.

Opinion does matter.  I understand it is better to make your own decision.  Sometimes what other people think can have good and bad influences though.  That's what other people are trying to do here: point out the good and the bad things that other people missed.

People do not "miss" good or bad things. "Good" and "Bad" are very subjective concepts. Assuming that someone didn't get to see the good aspects of a movie and trying to convince that person that he missed the point is what I find annoying and insulting.

I'll accept a one sentence opinion, but I sure won't respect it as much as a full page review.  I put more stock in someone who can come up with reasons for their feelings.  Hey, like I said, I'll accept these statements without comment, but I won't respect and value them as much as others.

I don't pratice that kind of discrimination. To me ALL opinions have the same value, regardless of how they're expressed.

[Ricard 2,245]

Like the above mentioned 2001, A.I. is not a movie that can acurately be love or dismissed in just 1 or two viewings, at least not by most viewers.

I loved 2001 the first time I saw it. And I think 1 viewing is more than enough for A.I.

I think time is going to be very kidn to A.I., like it has been to other films like 2001 or Vertigo.

I would never compare 2001 or Vertigo to A.I. They are far superior films in all respects, in my opinion.

[Ricard 2,245]

there is an undlying tone in alot of the people who like A.I., perhaps even Fight Club that "they" got it.  That "we" missed the point.  As if "we" are inferior and less intelligent because "we" didn't get it.  Superiority doesn't happen because one likes movie.  This kind of intellectual snobbing is not very appropriate or appreciated.

My thoughts exactly.