- Candidato a 2 Oscar
- 18 vittorie e 71 candidature totali
Recensioni in evidenza
I saw A.I. on the first night it ran here and I must say I was disappointed in the size of the audience. How strange to see so few people show up for a Spielberg film. This film did not enjoy the normal hype that most of Spielberg's films enjoy, I think I know why. Lack of product placement. They're may have been some somewhere but I didn't see them. A.I.'s story line and flawless visual effects reflect what I can only describe as the meeting of two great film makers. Kubrick (who started work on the project after he read the Aldiss book in '83),and Steven Spielberg who's long list of intelligent blockbusters made him the perfect person to bring this story to the screen. I could, I believe see the story boards and concepts Kubrick developed and I could also see the sensitivity that Spielberg added to scenes and characters. These two things are not entirely separate in good Science Fiction. All good science fiction has some human sensitivity in it otherwise it would just be a horror film. The script reflects some of the darkness and coldness that sometimes underlies each character human and machine, there is no fear of this in the story. This darkness draws us on in the story.
The visual effects are stunning and come darn close to genius. The story line takes us in and the visuals make it almost real.
I wish I had Mr. Mannings grip of syntax, but all in all at the end of the day it's good science fiction and a good story too. I beleve that Stanley Kubrick's choice of asking Steven Spielberg to make this film was the kind of genius that Kubrick showed in all his work. It is a tribute to both men that they saw a vision of something and worked toward it's creation. I think they came to a great place in film making.
The visual effects are stunning and come darn close to genius. The story line takes us in and the visuals make it almost real.
I wish I had Mr. Mannings grip of syntax, but all in all at the end of the day it's good science fiction and a good story too. I beleve that Stanley Kubrick's choice of asking Steven Spielberg to make this film was the kind of genius that Kubrick showed in all his work. It is a tribute to both men that they saw a vision of something and worked toward it's creation. I think they came to a great place in film making.
A fiercely compelling movie, at first, owing to how sickly it is. It raised a few hard questions on the ethics of sentient machines but isn't heavy handed with them.
Doubtlessly a bit creaky and heavy handed, especially with the whole Pinocchio subtext. But it's weird enough, and filled with so many vivid images of a grotesque future, no less brutal for the technological advances.
I'm not saying it's not campy and kind of stupid but that's better than boring.
As shamelessly ridiculous as this movie is, I can't make too much fun of it since by the end I was balling like an infant. It's hard hitting. I am one of those unpleasant cretins that would laugh at someone getting run over if they'd hurt my feelings the previous year. But this movie broke me down, man.
Doubtlessly a bit creaky and heavy handed, especially with the whole Pinocchio subtext. But it's weird enough, and filled with so many vivid images of a grotesque future, no less brutal for the technological advances.
I'm not saying it's not campy and kind of stupid but that's better than boring.
As shamelessly ridiculous as this movie is, I can't make too much fun of it since by the end I was balling like an infant. It's hard hitting. I am one of those unpleasant cretins that would laugh at someone getting run over if they'd hurt my feelings the previous year. But this movie broke me down, man.
I was 13-14 when I watched this movie. It's a long movie if I recall it correctly. I was so moved by it's theme, so I watched it all. I had strong feelings of sadness and sympathy towards little robot David that wanted to be a real child and to have a mom to love him. And that little bear ...
I cried during some scenes. I don't think I cried that much at any movie like at this one. Even though it's a Sci-Fi movie it has a lot of emotions. I have never watched it again since then. It'll be too hard for me
P.S I don't get how some people can rate this incredible movie with an 1 ? like why ?
Of course it's not a perfect movie, but sometimes it doesn't have to be. It matters your feelings about it, because this movie is that deep.
10/10
This was a horrible, horrible movie. A big, incoherent, pointless exercise in the typical Spielbergian club-you-over-the-head-until-you-get-it style that has absolutely no redeeming value whatsoever. Even the special effects are a waste, adding nothing to the plot and serving only as a place to dump millions of dollars where a few would have done just fine. Does it have a point of view? Who knows? The story is as disjointed as a road map of Afghanistan. Does it have humor, charm, pathos, insight--the few things, at least, you think you can count on from Steven Spielberg? No, no, no, no. Does it have a keen insight, a cold, dispassionate worldview, straightforward emotions, economy of action, like most of Kubrick's films? Uh, no, again.
This film is simply miserable. A hateful, ill-conceived, pointless, overblown, fragmented, shrill, poorly-executed disaster of a film that should serve as a cautionary tale to thousands of wanna-be filmmakers when they wonder if success is something that can be maintained after thirty years in the business. A disaster and a colossal disappointment, from beginning to end.
This film is simply miserable. A hateful, ill-conceived, pointless, overblown, fragmented, shrill, poorly-executed disaster of a film that should serve as a cautionary tale to thousands of wanna-be filmmakers when they wonder if success is something that can be maintained after thirty years in the business. A disaster and a colossal disappointment, from beginning to end.
I loved this film. It isn't one of the greatest films ever made, but it's a personal favorite of mine. I cried at the two sad points, I laughed at the mannerisms of Gigalo Joe and Teddy, the super-toy, my heart pumped faster at the action, suspense, and horror, but overall, I really enjoyed the film on a whole. I didn't find an ounce of it boring at all. It's practically the same as observing an extraordinary life and extraordinary tale of a boy who just wants his mommy. But the boy is not a boy, and rather a robot. But the way he acts can pass for a human any day.
The look of the film was dazzling and amazing. From the facilities in the underwater Manhatten, to the curvy, sensual architecture of Rouge City. I really felt as if I were really going along for a great ride and once I stepped out of the theater, I wanted more.
The film is from Steven Spielberg based on Brian Aldiss' short story, "Super-toys Last All Summer Long" which was doctored up by Stanley Kubrick. The film is a tribute to the legendary filmaker, but it is not his film, but rather Spielberg's. Sure it sometimes tries to mimic his styles, but that's practically the same as a filmmaker paying homage to a great. It's more or less the same as somebody making his adaptation of a novel or maybe graphic novel, since Kubrick supplied some of his artwork through designs. The story is Kubrick's, but the film is Spielberg's.
Although it may seem ridiculous to some at some points, it's a future, not THE future, but a rendition of it and somethings may happen in THIS future that may seem unrealistic. The film has a great score, but it just doesn't stand out like some of John Williams's other scores. The end could be considered a homage to Spielberg's "Close Encounters Of the Third Kind" or it could be something different, something more along the lines of the film's title, Artificial Intelligence, but only a far more advanced form of it.
The acting in this film is great along with the emotions, visions, humor, and fright. I found this film to be extraordinarily superb, but whether you think it's as good, is up to you.
The look of the film was dazzling and amazing. From the facilities in the underwater Manhatten, to the curvy, sensual architecture of Rouge City. I really felt as if I were really going along for a great ride and once I stepped out of the theater, I wanted more.
The film is from Steven Spielberg based on Brian Aldiss' short story, "Super-toys Last All Summer Long" which was doctored up by Stanley Kubrick. The film is a tribute to the legendary filmaker, but it is not his film, but rather Spielberg's. Sure it sometimes tries to mimic his styles, but that's practically the same as a filmmaker paying homage to a great. It's more or less the same as somebody making his adaptation of a novel or maybe graphic novel, since Kubrick supplied some of his artwork through designs. The story is Kubrick's, but the film is Spielberg's.
Although it may seem ridiculous to some at some points, it's a future, not THE future, but a rendition of it and somethings may happen in THIS future that may seem unrealistic. The film has a great score, but it just doesn't stand out like some of John Williams's other scores. The end could be considered a homage to Spielberg's "Close Encounters Of the Third Kind" or it could be something different, something more along the lines of the film's title, Artificial Intelligence, but only a far more advanced form of it.
The acting in this film is great along with the emotions, visions, humor, and fright. I found this film to be extraordinarily superb, but whether you think it's as good, is up to you.
20 Top-Rated Original Series on Paramount+
20 Top-Rated Original Series on Paramount+
From "Dexter: Resurrection" to "MobLand," check out IMDb's top-rated Paramount+ Originals and discover your next binge-worthy obsession.
Lo sapevi?
- QuizStanley Kubrick worked on the project for two decades before his death, but along the way, he asked Steven Spielberg to direct, saying it was "closer to his sensibilities." The two collaborated for several years, resulting in Kubrick giving Spielberg a complete story treatment and lots of conceptual art for the movie prior to his death, which Spielberg used to write his own scenario. Contrary to popular belief, Spielberg claims he introduced many of the darker elements into the story, while Kubrick's main contribution consisted mostly of its "sweeter" parts. In a 2002 interview with movie critic Joe Leydon, Spielberg indicated that the middle part of the movie, including the Flesh Fair, was his idea, whereas the first forty minutes, the Teddy bear, and the last twenty minutes were taken straight from Kubrick's story. Ian Watson, who wrote Kubrick's original treatment, confirmed that even the much-criticized ending, assumed by many to be a typical Spielberg addition, was "exactly what (he) wrote for Stanley, and exactly what he wanted, filmed faithfully by Spielberg."
- BlooperMuch of the film's early action takes place in Haddonfield, New Jersey. New York City is subsequently shown to be under water. Haddonfield's elevation (81 feet) is lower than that of New York City (87 feet), and it is near both the Atlantic coast and a river leading to the ocean, so Haddonfield should be under water too.
- Citazioni
[last lines]
Narrator: [narrating, as David lays next to Monica in bed] That was the everlasting moment he had been waiting for. And the moment had passed, for Monica was sound asleep. More than merely asleep.
Narrator: [David holds Monica's hand, closing his eyes] Should he shake her she would never rouse. So David went to sleep too. And for the first time in his life, he went to that place... where dreams are born.
- Curiosità sui creditiSentient Machine Therapist ... JEANINE SALLA Assistant to Mr. Chan ... LAIA SALLA Toe-Bell Ringer ... KATE NEI Cybertronics - Room 93056 ... CLAUDE GILBERT Sentient Machine Security ... DIANE FLETCHER Covert Information Retrieval ... RED KING These are characters from the AI alternate-reality game that was connected to the release of the film, and was played over the Internet. Several of the TV and cinema trailers for AI contained clues for game players, including the name Jeanine Salla listed in the credits at the end of the first trailer. This was the way into the game. The room number given in Claude Gilbert's credit is a further clue to game players.
- Versioni alternativeFor the U.S. theatrical release, the Warner Bros. logo appeared before the Dreamworks logo at the beginning of the film, and the poster credits said, "Warner Bros. and Dreamworks Pictures present." Since the U.S. version's home video/DVD rights are owned by Dreamworks, the Dreamworks logo at the beginning of the movie appears before the Warner Bros. logo, and the back of the box's cover art says, "Dreamworks Pictures and Warner Bros. present."
- Colonne sonoreWhat About Us
Written by Al Jourgensen, Paul Barker, Max Brody and Ty Coon (as Deborah Coon)
Produced by Al Jourgensen and Paul Barker with Robert Ezrin (as Bob Ezrin)
Performed by Ministry
I più visti
Accedi per valutare e creare un elenco di titoli salvati per ottenere consigli personalizzati
Dettagli
- Data di uscita
- Paesi di origine
- Sito ufficiale
- Lingua
- Celebre anche come
- I.A. Inteligencia Artificial
- Luoghi delle riprese
- Aziende produttrici
- Vedi altri crediti dell’azienda su IMDbPro
Botteghino
- Budget
- 100.000.000 USD (previsto)
- Lordo Stati Uniti e Canada
- 78.616.689 USD
- Fine settimana di apertura Stati Uniti e Canada
- 29.352.630 USD
- 1 lug 2001
- Lordo in tutto il mondo
- 235.926.635 USD
- Tempo di esecuzione
- 2h 26min(146 min)
- Colore
- Mix di suoni
- Proporzioni
- 1.85 : 1
Contribuisci a questa pagina
Suggerisci una modifica o aggiungi i contenuti mancanti







