If you check out the voluminous entries on the A.I. message boards you may be surprised to find how many thoughtful and articulate reviewers disagree with everything you have said. A.I. may not work for you but it works very well for such professional film critics as The New York Times's A.O. Scott. Yes, there are obvious (and wholly unnecessary) plot holes; yes, there is some poor pacing near the end; yes, the final scenes are obscure and ambiguous. But A.I. is a serious work meant to be viewed seriously. D.A.R.Y.L., on the other hand, is a charming little tale that maintains a light tone (a bit oddly, perhaps, since the plot sacrifices two well-intentioned characters along the way). So it is quite reasonable to regard it as an approach to the subject geared to a younger audience.
reply
share
arentol
14 years ago
Movies are much like books.
Some are meant to entertain.
Some are meant to provoke thoughtful discussions.
Some are meant to enlighten (rare in robot movies).
Some are meant to give pseudo-intellectuals something else they don't understand but can read an article about the "deeper meaning of", and then bring up in casual conversation to make them look like they think deep thoughts (frequently critic favorites).
There is overlap of course, and some movies cover all these things pretty effectively (Blade Runner for instance), but most overlaps are primarily of entertainment and provoke to discussion nature.
D.A.R.Y.L. is mostly entertainment with just a hint of discussion.
The Stepford Wives (using another human looking robot example) is mostly a movie meant to provoke discussion, with a fair amount of entertainment as well.
A.I. is almost entirely a movie for pretentious a-holes with a bit of discussion provocation and basically no entertainment or enlightenment to it.
reply
share
ender342
14 years ago
Thank you for that thoughtful characterization of the film and of me.
reply
share