My family thought I was weird, but I loved this one for some reason. It always gets to me to see people age drastically in a movie, then to see the Earth many thousand years later. It was really sad.

This was the one with Sam Neil, right, or was that Bicentennial?

Yea, wrong movie.

Though I think I'm the only other person who really liked Bi.

My family thought I was weird, but I loved this one for some reason. It always gets to me to see people age drastically in a movie, then to see the Earth many thousand years later. It was really sad.

Hm, what exactly is it about the film that elicits such hostile reactions? I honestly am baffled by the very negative comments. Don't get me wrong, I don't think this film is a masterpiece, and I do find the ending to be...weird and goodie-goodie, but still.

The ending was deceptively dark. Aliens come from some other planet (?) to Earth to uncover its secrets, find the last "living" record of all of humanity and all it yearns for is fleeting and "virtual" selfish pleasures?

A.I. is a film about the inability of the human race to emotionally evolve. The whole concept of the film is that humans create these children to fill emotional voids. The robots and the humans can never move on, there can never be acceptence or a feeling of loss.

Isn't a premise like this supposed to move me if executed well?

Or maybe it just showcased my inability to emotionally evolve.

In any case, it was boring, boring and once again, excruciatingly boring.

You said the ending was "terrible". I don't care if it moved you or not, but why shoot down discussion on it.


I'm not attacking you Lecter so back off.


So, you are posting in this thread because you want to discuss it... but you really *don't* want to discuss it?

My favorite sci-fi film of the decade,spielberg's most nisunderstood film.Its also spielberg's second most underrated film after empire of the sun.The film has the greatest visual effects of the decade and deserved the award over FOTR.Atleast the people who didnt like the film admit it was visually stunning,do you think the same way lecter?

A bit about the production history from Wikipedia:

A.I. was initially inspired by a very short story by UK science-fiction writer Brian Aldiss, Super-Toys Last All Summer Long. Kubrick and Aldiss spent years (on and off) attempting to develop this piece into a full length film. Aldiss claims he never felt the story could be successfully expanded into something bigger, as its focus was too intimate to begin with, and this seems to have been the origin of his problems with Spielberg, who was equally certain it could be fleshed out. Despite these problems, Aldiss has claimed he and Kubrick had come up with three or four "non-submersible units" (Kubrick-speak for the interesting sequences a film should contain 6 of) by taking ideas from other stories of his. Kubrick seems to have made some highly unreasonable demands on Aldiss[citation needed], and there was also a dispute over money. Coupled with Kubrick's insistence on taking elements from "Pinocchio" this ended their relationship.
Irish science fiction novelist Bob Shaw was then brought on board for a few months, but he found Kubrick too demanding. Kubrick turned to another UK science fiction notable, Ian Watson, who did seem to work well with him, and the two produced the long treatment (credited to Watson) that Spielberg used to write his screenplay. Both British feminist writer, Sara Maitland, and Arthur C. Clarke added ideas to A.I. A science fiction painter known as Fangorn (Christopher Baker website) was commissioned to produce hundreds of pictures from ideas and descriptions given to him by Kubrick which were used heavily by Spielberg, too. Spielberg then bought the rights to Aldiss' two brief sequels to "Supertoys" and ideas from them appear in the movie.