I found myself in deep thought most of the ride home, trying to figure out what my feelings were exactly. I felt cold, sad and curious. One of my first thoughts was to call my kids and tell them I love them, to call my mom and tell her the same thing. I guess that nay seem too cliched but that's the way I felt.

Could I feel for David? Yes and no. I think we all want to be loved by someone at a point in our life that won't or can't return the feeling. We have our ways of dealing with it. We find someone else or we take it to extreme measures. But knowing David was a robot put me on the outside at first. As the film went along and David started to evolve and we begin to know I began to feel a sense of sadness for him. Whether he was a robot or not most children are secure in the fact that their parents love them. I could not bear the thought of pushing my children aside like that.

Most people like to think they are a unique one of a kind person. When David discovers he isn't I could understand his sense of fear and horror. Most of us have been in a position when we discover something we believe in or someone we trusted in has been compromised or revealed to be the exact opposite. The fact he turned violent at first comes as no suprise, most of us get a sense of anger when confronted with similar situations.

And damn Spielberg and Williams I knew what was to come and yet I couldn't stop the tears when David finally gets his wish, even if it's only for a day. What would most of us give to spend a day with a loved one who has gone, passed away. The emotions he felt to see his mother, to hear those important words, "I love you". I think that is something that we all take for granted, we never tell those we love enough times that we do love them until it is too late. Was the ending un-necessary? Maybe but what's wrong with a happy ending? From what I under stand Kubrick had the same idea in mind so maybe we should lay off of Spielberg and his ending.

Was the film perfect? No, but I have yet to see a perfect film, from the so called Golden Age to the Independent Films or Art house movies, even to the foreign level. It made me think, it made me cry and it certainly has generated alot of talk. So it must be doing something right.

Visually the film is excellent and Williams' score is outstanding. Haley Joel Osment is terrific as David and Jude Law gives an excellent performance. Teddy (Hal anyone?) was a wonderful idea for this film.

This movie makes you think and no offense to anyone but I have to laugh at a majority of the film goers who trashed this film on other review sites recommending films like The Fast and The Furious or Tomb Raider instead. And their use of language was even more questionable to show that maybe we have become dumbed down by Hollywood to only expect car chases, explosions and mother **** this and mother **** that. Well some of us want more from a movie from time to time and I felt A.I. did that and more.

I know I said I was done with A.I., but let me ask a question. You did not see every single step of the film way ahead of its delivery? I was very bored since it was like I already saw the film, already knowing what was going to happen 10 minutes before something happens. I was also turned off by Speilberg's cheasy HE IS A BOY NOT A ROBOT crap in the Flesh Fair since it went to crap right at that point.

Kross I don't know maybe I'm too naive when it comes to films, maybe I like Spielberg too much to look past his faults. I try to take a fresh approach to films, try to view it like I've never seen it before. 8/10 movies you can tell what is going to happen before it ends. Sometimes the fun is watching it play out in front of you.

This past month I knew the L.A. Lakers would win the NBA championship, Philly just didn't have enough power to stop them. I still watched though, because I wanted to see how it was played out plus the fact I'm a life long Laker fan.

Maybe there were moments in the film that reflected something that happened to me or how I felt about an issue.

I've said many times that people view things so differently. You find TRL to be great movie, I find it to be a jumbled, pointless film. Many people think 2001 is the greatest Sci-fi film made, I think it is a dull snoozefest. Alot of people think King Kong (1933)is cheesy and fake. I think it is one of the best adventure films made and think it still holds up after 68 years. Hell there is one scene in The Waterboy that caused me to buy the film. The ESPN Sportscenter clip with Dan Patrick doing the Michigan update when their towel boy gets creamed coming across the middle on a pass play. That scene makes me laugh so hard I start crying everytime I see it. I can watch that scene 7-10 times in a row and laugh just as hard each time.

I still love watching movies I've seen countless times even though I know how it turns out. Why? Because I enjoy them. Jaws is still entertaining after 26 years, Ray Harryhausen's films are still fun to watch. Are they a bit outdated? Sure but still entertaining.

I've really never been too concerned about knowing what is going to happen, just watching it unfold on screen. We are all entitled to our opinions, people view things differently. Does that make one person more intelligent than the other? Does that make those who critique movies for a living smarter than the average movie goer? The answer is no. I was suprised to see Ebert give Tomb Raider a thumbs up. I really didn't think he would care for it too much. My son loved Tomb Raider, he asked my opinion on it and I told him I thought it was lousy. He said "you must think I'm dumb for liking it" I told him no and that it didn't really matter what others thought as long a he enjoyed the film.

All stories bear signs of their antecedents, even if it is only the stories that made you want to tell stories for a living. Some people call this being influenced, others an homage... but all stories bear the mark of their forebearers. I think it is pretty naive to dislike a story solely on this criteria.

Why not see the similarities in certain types of stories (any Joseph Campbell fans out there...?), and then marvel at the different directions a film like A.I. or The Matrix takes them? Or the different questions the films leave you with?

Personally, I think both of the aforementioned films are pretty great. The Matrix reminded me that there is still hope for the American action / adventure movie. And A.I., to me, is a beautiful meditation on the nature of love in all it's varying degrees.

The main reason why I did not like A.I. was that it was far too sentimental when it would have blown me away had it stayed rather dark and mysterious like the 1st half. For me, A.I. became just another film since the story and "moral" of the film was nothing new, or nothing great(or nothing even close to better than what has been done before) I really, really, loved the film up untill the end of the Flesh Fair. It WAS, or it seemed like this was going to be one of the best films of the year, and of Steven's career but at that point in the Flesh Fair it turned to the same old thing. I really really wanted to LOVE this film but I came out hating it, since it went for the obvious and not the daring. If the film did not go all sentimental and cheasy, I bet I would have gone nuts over it since I loved the 1st bit of the film which was different and un-Spielbergian.

I guess it is not that we all know how it is gonna end, but the fact that the film is nothing new, or it does not imporve on something old/bring new light. It felt like watching a Disney film for me. Where you know exactly what each character is gonna say or do, and you know the CHEASE of their words like " I am a real boy." Stuff like that. I do respect parts of the film but as a whole I was amazingly let down.

The problem is Spielberg's writting and how he takes over the characters and the characters do not take over him. SO, my major beef is that it felt like a Disney film, and that I flet like I was watching Speilberg sitting in a chair trying to tell us what he thinks love is instead of the film itself showing that.

This being inspired by a recent article revealing that the publishers that own the rights to The Chronicles of Narnia, 1) want to downplay the Christian theme throughout C.S. Lewis' work, and 2) would like to have a series of fantasy "spin-off" books....

Naturally, a great insult to the legacy of C.S. Lewis. I've felt similarly about the Star Wars "spin-off" series. Yeah, it's great if you know what the 3rd alien from the left's real name is, and the fact that he ran guns for the alliance during the battle of Endor....but this has nothing to do with the unifying mythos of Star Wars.....

All stories can be predictable, because all stories are the same, under the unifying myth. The trick is identifying the roles. Who is the Father? Who is the Trickster? Who is the Mentor? Who is the Threshold Guardian? Who is the Hero? Is the Hero also the Son? Is the Hero the Father?

It's all fascinating stuff, and to me, it makes (virtually) every movie a puzzle, something I have to assemble in my mind, and ponder, drawing parallels to past mythic traditions, Greek, Norse, African, South American....it's a world of amazing stories out there.

When you line the myths up against the psychoanalytical aspects of the film...that's a whole new dimension, as well. The mythos and the psyche are very related....

People talk about Spielberg's ability to make films about kids. They need to see what Jacques Doillon has done in films like Ponette, La Drolesse, La Vie De Famille, etc. to see what a director can do with children, but never mind that just now. Some people say that Spielberg makes good movies about kids because he can't handle adult subjects, but never mind that attack on him just now either.

The problem I have with Spielberg is that he's not above putting children in peril to manipulate the audience--suspense, fear, maternal instincts aroused--but at the same time, he knows the lesson that Hitchcock learned blowing up the boy on the bus in Sabotage, that the audience will hate you if you don't relieve that tension and actually kill a kid in a movie.

So, we get a little French girl pinned down by sniper fire along with GIs in Private Ryan--I know she's not gonna get hurt, but Spielberg has to try to fake the audience out.

Now in AI, Spielberg has stacked the deck. He's made his kid loving but vulnerable and slow to learn. It's as if the robot is all dumb and nice with no defenses at all--he can't shut down his pain response, he can't talk back to taunting, he doesn't know he's being tricked, etc. etc. He's the underdog we can't help but root for and suffer with (or so Steve thinks).

Look Steve, he's a prototype, an experiment, and he's got some major design flaws that show up in test trials and need to be addressed in making next year's model, that's all. AI might point to where designers might want to go in producing this high tech of the future. AI might lead to laws that say you're stuck with the robot for 18 years once you imprint him.

Ultimately, just because a film is about ideas or shows some intelligence doesn't mean it's automatically a good film. AI may raise issues but it still suffers from Spielberg's clumsy pandering. AI is a one-sided propaganda piece that ultimately tries to stir easy cheap emotions rather than stand under the scrutiny of putting forth real arguments. It's a film about ethics that doesn't use any itself.

I have said before, that while the film raises many interesting points and has some impressive visuals, that alone does not make it a good film. It often felt manipulative, contrived, and intentionally vague, simply for the sake of being vague.

Must we sacrifice good storytelling, just because there is a thought-provoking issue to be made.

If that's the only reason someone is making a movie, perhaps they should write a book.

I think there are a few people around here who are letting their own preconceived notions about the people involved with the film taint their view of the film itself, instead of letting the film do the talking.

As for myself and AI...I wanted so badly to enjoy it. I'm a big fan of intriguing sci fi, but in the end it just fell flat for me.

I realize that a lot of people are either emotionally moved and/or intellectually stimulated about AI. I've also said that given the kind of films we've been getting, at least this one has more content and is more ambitious in comparison.

Some of the general complaints about AI aren't the ones I have--I actually found the last section more interesting than earlier sections, 2000 years, Blue Fairy and all. I didn't feel the film was either too spelled out or too vague. I didn't think the ending was upbeat. I think identification with David is difficult despite all the POV shots, his human-like characteristics, or his machine-caused vulnerablities. I don't think it's important that you identify with David, you don't get pulled into some of the emotion of his situation, but that in itself is not a crime. There are lots of films which have a difficult-to-relate-to protagonist that can still be fascinating (Marnie, The Big Knife, etc.).

I guess my issues with AI are that despite the acting, score, special effects, and ideas, it's still a flat, boring journey. As I said above, Spielberg seems to share the notion that our ethics aren't as advanced as our technology and that we'll eventually global warm the earth and continue to create a world in which even machines suffer. It's cynical propaganda of the Frankenstein ilk that actually stands in the way of both progress and our belief that we can handle where our discoveries take us.

I can't say it hasn't stimulated my discussions, but so what? I can talk about Driven or The Mummy Returns too. It not only falls flat for me as a movie experience but I disagree with its message too. And certainly I didn't have any of these pivotal moments where I came home and questioned the entire state of reality, love, and socialization that others claim happened to them.

At one point a robot says--Humans hate us because we'll outlive them. What a botch. Everything humans do from having children or planting trees, writing books, building buildings, making movies, it's all about making a mark that will last beyond our lives and our times. People are interested in the future, in creativity, and in the survival of the species. If we fail, we want some alien machines to recognize what we were from our ruins.

This line is probably Kubrick's, similar to the bug line in Paths of Glory where the prisoners hate that a bug will outlive them. And even with this attitude, the big K himself had 3 children and left behind a dozen films.

Professor Hobby is the one in love with this creation that can do more than he suspected it could and his reaction seems the more human response. But for Spielberg this only leads the machine to destroy other machines and himself. There will probably always be Luddites like the flesh fair types.But it seems Spielberg's a Luddite too. He seems to have sympathy for the self-preservation of a machine that thinks it's alive (imagine if your car refused to drive because it knew it could get killed out there), but sees it as a mistake on our part that we created this.

I suppose you could say that because of all talk it generates that the film has worth. But this alone doesn't make masterpieces. I love The Big Country for instance because it's a film that shares my politics, but it doesn't speak to my soul, and so it's not a masterpiece. I have problems with some of the things in Rebel Without A Cause and For Whom The Bell Tolls, but these films speak about life at an existential level and are masterpieces.

Good, bad, worthwhile--these aren't the issues. AI is not a film that either celebrates us or understands our agonies. People think it's about love or questions us to think about what it means to be human, but I don't think it succeeds there.

Therefore, AI is a detour, at least for me--like David himself, an experiement that goes awry. The real films about what humanity is and must go through are elsewhere.