I am. I was. The Match-Cut A.I. Rewatch

[Milky Joe]

BuffaloWilder agrees, that makes one A.I. fan and one non-fan. Let's do this thing.

What should the deadline be for watching it? A week? Five days? More?

[BuffaloWilder]

Hey, hey, hey. I like the film. Just not those last fifteen minutes. And, it's more in execution than in concept, really. Everything before that, I'm just in love with.

But, yes. Let's do this thing. I says a week, I says.

[Sven]

I'll probably watch this tomorrow before class.

[MadMan]

Back in high school, I watched the first 20 minutes of this movie. I never finished the rest. Maybe someday.

[Watashi]

Hey... I was going to rewatch this week also.

[Pop Trash]

I need to buy this. I've seen it three times.

First time in theaters: "eh, interesting, but Spielberg should have ended with the roboboy staring at the Blue Fairy underwater."
Second time on DVD: "this is actually a remarkable movie and the ending doesn't bother me anymore...in fact it actually makes it more interesting."
Third time on DVD: "this is probably a masterpiece and would make my top ten of the decade."

[Boner M]

I need to buy this. I've seen it three times.

First time in theaters: "eh, interesting, but Spielberg should have ended with the roboboy staring at the Blue Fairy underwater."
Second time on DVD: "this is actually a remarkable movie and the ending doesn't bother me anymore...in fact it actually makes it more interesting."
Third time on DVD: "this is probably a masterpiece and would make my top ten of the decade."
Exactly.

[megladon8]

I'll start it tonight.

[Milky Joe]

I'm not prepared to say that it's a masterpiece, but it's easily his most visually impressive. The compositions are stunning: fantastically dense and full of intricate geometry and beautiful back- and soft-lights and fractured windows and textures out the wazoo. Each frame is like this. At some point I'll post some screencaps.

[Spinal]

I already did a rewatch not too long ago and found the film to have little to offer me besides impressive technical qualities and a great supporting performance by Jude Law. The actual story just struck me as being awfully silly. I really doubt another rewatch at this point would be a good idea for me.

[Rowland]

To think my little post started all this... well, cool. I'll rewatch the movie in the next week as well, just for kicks.

[B-side]

I already did a rewatch not too long ago and found the film to have little to offer me besides impressive technical qualities and a great supporting performance by Jude Law. The actual story just struck me as being awfully silly. I really doubt another rewatch at this point would be a good idea for me.

Haley Joel Osment's performance was way superior. Kid was incredible in that movie.

[Grouchy]

I own it and haven't seen it since I bought it more than three years ago.

So, it's probably a good idea for me too. Sunday.

[Spinal]

Haley Joel Osment's performance was way superior. Kid was incredible in that movie.

Superior to Jude Law? Good god, no.

[Grouchy]

Superior to Jude Law? Good god, no.
Well, Haley's is a much more demanding character, and the kid is brilliant. Jude Law is good in the movie too, but nothing extraordinary.

[B-side]

Well, Haley's is a much more demanding character, and the kid is brilliant. Jude Law is good in the movie too, but nothing extraordinary.

Indeed.

[Mara]

I only saw it once, but my impression was that it was an interesting idea with great elements that was squandered in lackluster execution. I'm pretty sure I also completely reworked the script in my mind to make it better.

I've put in on my queue, but I'm not sure when I'll get to it.

[Kurosawa Fan]

Hm. I haven't seen it since it hit theaters, so a rewatch would be a pretty good idea. I'll try to track it down and give it a go in the next week or so.

[Sven]

Okay, guys, so I'm watching it now and I absolutely could not wait to note this, so I had to pause it:

The Flesh Fair sequence is mind-meltingly incredible. OMG.

Jude Law is scary good. I love physical performances.

Frances O Connor wildly fluctuates between believable and ridiculous.

This movie, it is working for me.

[Dukefrukem]

It sucks balls.

[D_Davis]

The Flesh Fair sequence is mind-meltingly incredible. OMG.


This is my least favorite part of the film. It reminds of an early '90s industrial music video, like Ministry's Burning Inside or something. It feels so dated.

However, I agree with you that Jude Law is fantastic, and that the movie works. I especially like everything that happens after the Flesh Fair.

Guess I'll watch this again. Maybe my opinion on the FF will have changed. We'll see.

[Sven]

This is my least favorite part of the film. It reminds of an early '90s industrial music video, like Ministry's Burning Inside or something. It feels so dated.

I think I remember feeling similarly, but this time I did not find that it carried those same stigmas. The staging and the horror of the robots' responses were very impressive. And there's that long tracking shot of the guy walking Teddy to the Lost and Found, which is one of the finer shots I've seen in a Spielberg film. And Gleason's barking was awesome. He pulls off the requisite sci-fi monologuing very well, as does Hurt in his final scene with David.

Yeah, the movie is wonderful. The only quibbles I have are O'Connor, like I mentioned, who, though evocative as a mother figure, is frequently less than convincing. Osment also has a couple of hiccups here and there, but is mostly impressive, but really, Law is the best of the bunch.

I like that the movie has all kinds of ideas. Could maybe have used a little less of the super-bright-light thing that Spielminski has seemed so set on using these days, though it was less distracting than it was in Minority Report.

[D_Davis]

I think I remember feeling similarly, but this time I did not find that it carried those same stigmas.

Maybe enough time has passed that we can look at it as an anachronism now.

[Dukefrukem]

This is my least favorite part of the film. It reminds of an early '90s industrial music video, like Ministry's Burning Inside or something. It feels so dated.

However, I agree with you that Jude Law is fantastic, and that the movie works. I especially like everything that happens after the Flesh Fair.

Guess I'll watch this again. Maybe my opinion on the FF will have changed. We'll see.

Huh? really? You really didn't think the ending was teh worst part? Am i the only one?

[D_Davis]

Huh? really? You really didn't think the ending was teh worst part? Am i the only one?

I love the ending. It's not executed as well as it could have been, but the themes are the stuff of great SF. The whole final 3rd of the film is brilliant. From the Rogue City sequence to where they fly back to the robot factory, with the water pouring out of the lion's mouths is one of my favorite stretches in any movie. It's just beautiful.

[D_Davis]

It's themes are lofty and ambitious, even if its execution is somewhat flawed. Perhaps I admire it more for what it tries to do than for what it actually does.

[Sycophant]

It sucks balls.

Take it to the IMDb.

[Dukefrukem]

Take it to the IMDb.

Sorry. But even with everyones explanations I cannot fathom how anyone would want to watch this movie again. I put it right next to Cabin Fever.

[Skitch]

Sorry. But even with everyones explanations I cannot fathom how anyone would want to watch this movie again. I put it right next to Cabin Fever.

Seriously? What the fuck? I mean, you don't like the movie, okay, but it's not an abortion.

[SirNewt]

I love the ending. It's not executed as well as it could have been, but the themes are the stuff of great SF. The whole final 3rd of the film is brilliant. From the Rogue City sequence to where they fly back to the robot factory, with the water pouring out of the lion's mouths is one of my favorite stretches in any movie. It's just beautiful.

The stuff of great SF? The last 10 minutes are total fantasy. But the flight to the robot factory is amazing I'll give you that. And kudos to the filmmakers for envisioning advanced synthetic species that aren't all voot, kachunk, vooooot. If you get my meaning.

[jamaul]

I'll never forget when I first saw this movie. I think it was the first movie I ever saw where I walked out of the theater with more questions than answers.

This'll make my top ten of the decade for sure.

[D_Davis]

The stuff of great SF? The last 10 minutes are total fantasy.

It's not fantasy at all. It beautifully tackles the meaning of perceived reality and the meaning of the self, tropes that SF has dealt with since its conception. It may use fantastic imagery, imagery steeped in fairy tales really, but it's themes are classically SF.

[jamaul]

It's not fantasy at all. It beautifully tackles the meaning of perceived reality and the meaning of the self, tropes that SF has dealt with since its conception. It may use fantastic imagery, imagery steeped in fairy tales really, but it's themes are classically SF.

It's pretty philosophical too. I always thought David's journey to become real mirrored any of our journey for any particular philosophical or metaphysical truth or fulfillment. It's chilling, because David lives amongst his creator, and once his creator becomes extinct, all that is left is the creation, itself seeking the same philosophical and metaphysical answers we have sought since the dawn of man. The frozen city of the future at the end of A.I. is so chilling, so disturbing.

[Ezee E]

Here's where all of Spielberg's weaknesses in other movies seem to work here. The teddy bear. Great. Mother figure. Works. Change of pace at the end... Depends on how you see it. Sometimes I like it, sometimes I don't.

And yes, Gigolo Joe. Hmm... Could he be the best Spielberg character out there?

[Spinal]

And yes, Gigolo Joe. Hmm... Could he be the best Spielberg character out there?

Amon Goeth, methinks.

[Eleven]

Amon Goeth, methinks.

Quint, Indy, and ET are up there as well.

[BuffaloWilder]

I propose that once all is said and done, those of us who have blogs should condense and re-publish it under our own banner.

If I wanted to be really ambitious, I'd say we should do this more often, and publish it in a blog of some form or another, if only so that we could point and laugh at Film of the Month Club and say - "look FMC, Match-Cut has it's own blog. Ha ha ha."

http://simpsons-scripts.wdfiles.com/local--files/start/homer-simpson

So.

[Sycophant]

I'm going to try to watch it this weekend. I watched this probably a half dozen times back in 2002-2003.

[Mysterious Dude]

Am I the only one who finds robots not-very-interesting? SF writers have been writing about them since Karel Čapek, but I just don't find robotics to be a particularly pressing matter in our civilization, nor do I see it becoming one in the future. What's the appeal?

[Sven]

Am I the only one who finds robots not-very-interesting? SF writers have been writing about them since Karel Čapek, but I just don't find robotics to be a particularly pressing matter in our civilization, nor do I see it becoming one in the future. What's the appeal?

Man could be called a simple lump sum of what constitutes his/her make-up, much like a robot, so it's got some direct applicability. And it also comes down to: if something looks like and acts like something, IS it that something? Perhaps it is a bit far to consider robotics as a very realistic way of dramatizing this idea as science fiction, but it is certainly a philosophical quandary that questions our definitions of ourselves. Simulation-reality models are constantly in flux. It's all metaphorical, allegorical, whatever, though I'd be lying if I didn't say much of the appeal to me is the fantastic actualization of man's concept of artificial life.

[Derek]

Am I the only one who finds robots not-very-interesting? SF writers have been writing about them since Karel Čapek, but I just don't find robotics to be a particularly pressing matter in our civilization, nor do I see it becoming one in the future. What's the appeal?

Since the Industrial Revolution, mankind has been moving towards the direction of mechanization and replication, creating technology to make physical labor easier for us or simply replace the human element. Robots are not interesting because there's a real possibility of fully functional and emotional robots in the near future, but because they represent what can be seen as the dangerous end that this insatiable yearning for more technology and conveniences and less physical and, perhaps, mental effort. Simply look at the issue of child obesity in America - children are watching more tv and playing more video games now than even when you and I were kids rather than playing outside. Obviously, this isn't directly linked to robots, but both are related in ways to a virtual reality, or at least, a reality that is distanced from the physical world. As stupid as it looks, take Surrogates, the film coming out with Bruce Willis in that unfortunate wig, where robots are a vessel to exist in the world while we control them from a safe distance. Whether or not, something like that ever passes into existence, it is undeniable that we are currently, and more important knowingly, heading in that direction. I think robots are an easy way of examining what is lost when man uses technology to create an object that is simultaneously supposed to contain all/most human qualities. It's akin to cloning in the philosophical issues it allows one to address - what makes us distinctly human, how does a distancing from the physical world effect us (both mentally and physiologically), where do the rights of robots clone begin/end, etc. etc. etc.

[transmogrifier]

I've never understood that question, "What makes us human?"

The fact that when we screw other species, nothing happens, but when we screw each other, little humans pop out. Pretty simple if you ask me.

[Sven]

I've never understood that question, "What makes us human?"

The fact that when we screw other species, nothing happens, but when we screw each other, little humans pop out. Pretty simple if you ask me.

Okay, Mr. Reductive. Humans are a species. That's not what the question is asking and you know it.

[Raiders]

I've never understood that question, "What makes us human?"

The fact that when we screw other species, nothing happens, but when we screw each other, little humans pop out. Pretty simple if you ask me.

Do you boil everything down to such literal reductiveness?

[transmogrifier]

Did I forget a smiley?

But srsly, such a boring question.

[transmogrifier]

Do you boil everything down to such literal reductiveness?

I prefer reductive literality.

[Sven]

But srsly, such a boring question.

Sometimes and in a way, I'm inclined to agree. I do not feel like I am one to do a lot of introspection myself. However, as a broad ontological line of questioning, I find it pretty fascinating when I stop to think about it.

[transmogrifier]

Sometimes and in a way, I'm inclined to agree. I do not feel like I am one to do a lot of introspection myself. However, as a broad ontological line of questioning, I find it pretty fascinating when I stop to think about it.

But what is so fascinating about it? We are discrete entities, so all it ends up is people listing a bunch of stuff we can do and saying "Wow, aren't we unique?". Pointless. The only thing interesting about us are our personal narratives and internal motivations, and how these interact in a thing called society. Debating what it means to be human is like watching a soccer game and debating what the ball is made of.

[Derek]

But srsly, such a boring question.

Probably because a lot of films deal with it in boring and stupid ways. But that's not the question's fault. ;)

[Sven]

But what is so fascinating about it? We are discrete entities, so all it ends up is people listing a bunch of stuff we can do and saying "Wow, aren't we unique?". Pointless. The only thing interesting about us are our personal narratives and internal motivations, and how these interact in a thing called society. Debating what it means to be human is like watching a soccer game and debating what the ball is made of.

I disagree. Most of the time, we do not actually conclude that we are unique, and there's the rub. It is, of course, not pointless to attempt to describe things.

[transmogrifier]

I disagree. Most of the time, we do not actually conclude that we are unique, and there's the rub. It is, of course, not pointless to attempt to describe things.

Um, some of our characteristics aren't unique, but we are. Case closed. Show me some plot now please.

[Sven]

Um, some of our characteristics aren't unique, but we are. Case closed. Show me some plot now please.

Smiley or not, you are certainly being reductive. :)

[transmogrifier]

Smiley or not, you are certainly being reductive. :)

I want you to hit me as hard as you can.

[Sven]

I want you to hit me as hard as you can.

You would bring Fincher into this.

[Justin]

I take so much flack for loving this movie amongst friends and coworkers, and I still do not know why. I have told many to go back and re-watch it. There are just so many great elements in this film, but I am sure it is the ending of the film which turn people away. But of course part of me believes it is the Haley Joel Osment backlash that started after 6th Sense.


It's themes are lofty and ambitious, even if its execution is somewhat flawed. Perhaps I admire it more for what it tries to do than for what it actually does.

That is something a professor and I discussed once. We were talking about how we much prefer a movie that has high goals, even if it fails, than when a film just coasts a long harmlessly and succeeds(In a general sense).

[SirNewt]

It's not fantasy at all. It beautifully tackles the meaning of perceived reality and the meaning of the self, tropes that SF has dealt with since its conception. It may use fantastic imagery, imagery steeped in fairy tales really, but it's themes are classically SF.

Gotchya, I guess I got a little caught up in the "We can bring her back but only for one day" idea. It seems like pure make belief and not very scientific. But the questions posed are pretty classic SF.

as to "why robots? why always with the robots?"

Are humans an ultimately complex clock spring just unwinding or is there something more, like a soul? That's a question that if we could answer would for better or worse influence the way a lot of people fundamentally think about science, the law, society, and so forth. Creating Artificial Humans touches this question. The assumption being that if humans are complex parallel processors then there is no reason we can't reproduce ourselves, but if there is a soul we can't understand than we're done. Of course this line of thought is kind of useless to me. What's to say if a soul is necessary, that creating this thing wouldn't cause a soul to arise on its own. I mean that perhaps it wouldn't actually physically arise but how complex must a system we build become before we can no longer separate the bytes from the brains.

[D_Davis]

Are humans an ultimately complex clock spring just unwinding or is there something more, like a soul? That's a question that if we could answer would for better or worse influence the way a lot of people fundamentally think about science, the law, society, and so forth. Creating Artificial Humans touches this question. The assumption being that if humans are complex parallel processors then there is no reason we can't reproduce ourselves, but if there is a soul we can't understand than we're done. Of course this line of thought is kind of useless to me. What's to say if a soul is necessary, that creating this thing wouldn't cause a soul to arise on its own. I mean that perhaps it wouldn't actually physically arise but how complex must a system we build become before we can no longer separate the bytes from the brains.

Nicely said.

Robots are a device, a lens, through which the SF author examines humanity and what it means to be human.

[balmakboor]

Remember all the arguments and confusion people had at the time about whether the beings were aliens or mechas at the end? I always had my own snarky answer. They were both.

Hans Morovec's book Mind Children was one of Kubrick's influences while coming up with the story and he envisioned a future where mankind has become extinct, his robots have continued to evolve, and eventually realizing -- their being robots and all -- that they no longer had any need for the Earth or even a planet, they went off and populated the universe.

But he did go on to speculate that they may find themselves returning to Earth at some point for some sort of roboty research needs into problems that require knowledge of their distant past and their creators to solve.

This of course is exactly what happens at the end of A.I. So, yes, they are aliens in that they come from somewhere other than the Earth. And they are machines, although they've evolved for so long that they resemble their distant creators as much as they resemble anything we would think of as a machine.

And Hobby is so totally their god figure and David a Christy sort of figure in this scenario.

[Chac Mool]

Am I the only one who finds robots not-very-interesting? SF writers have been writing about them since Karel Čapek, but I just don't find robotics to be a particularly pressing matter in our civilization, nor do I see it becoming one in the future. What's the appeal?

What's the difference between a sufficiently advanced learning machine and a child? And if there is a difference, where is the line drawn? Are we and all that we do "something special", or are we simply a collection of biological responses to inputs?


Gotchya, I guess I got a little caught up in the "We can bring her back but only for one day" idea. It seems like pure make belief and not very scientific. But the questions posed are pretty classic SF.

It's a make-believe, fairy-tale story told by elders to a child: as much is said when the head robot says "Give him what he wants.".

It just so happens that the elders and the child aren't human.

[SirNewt]

What's the difference between a sufficiently advanced learning machine and a child? And if there is a difference, where is the line drawn? Are we and all that we do "something special", or are we simply a collection of biological responses to inputs?



It's a make-believe, fairy-tale story told by elders to a child: as much is said when the head robot says "Give him what he wants.".

It just so happens that the elders and the child aren't human.

I'm sorry I miss your meaning. Are you agreeing with my former statement that the film isn't Science Fiction but is instead Fantasy? Or are you agreeing with DD?

[megladon8]

I'ts still very good, but I don't love it like I used to.

Haley Joel Osment is great, but I agree that Jude Law is better.

[Chac Mool]

I'm sorry I miss your meaning. Are you agreeing with my former statement that the film isn't Science Fiction but is instead Fantasy? Or are you agreeing with DD?

The elder robots make up a story for David in order to give him a little bit of closure.

[BuffaloWilder]

So:

Thoughts?

[Milky Joe]

Holy shit those last 20 minutes are crucial.

[BuffaloWilder]

ha ha ha

[balmakboor]

Holy shit those last 20 minutes are crucial.

How so?

[Milky Joe]

Well, it contains the entire emotional and thematic crux of the film, for one thing.

[Pop Trash]

I finally bought this on DVD for ten bucks. I'll watch it again this week and let ya'll know my thoughts. I believe this will be my fourth time through.

[BuffaloWilder]

There are a number of scenes here that I think would've ran a little differently, under Kubrick. I can't be the only one who watched the scene between David and Joe after they left Doctor Know and thought, 'you know, I bet this probably would've sounded a little like that scene between Jack Torrance and Grady in The Shining if Kubrick had directed it. Lots of dead silence, and such.'

[Pop Trash]

There are a number of scenes here that I think would've ran a little differently, under Kubrick. I can't be the only one who watched the scene between David and Joe after they left Doctor Know and thought, 'you know, I bet this probably would've sounded a little like that scene between Jack Torrance and Grady in The Shining if Kubrick had directed it. Lots of dead silence, and such.'

I was also pretty positive (unless the studio demanded a PG-13 from Kubrick) that there would be nudity in both the opening scene with William Hurt introducing the mecha and telling her to strip and possibly later with the prostitute mecha. The former scene in particular just seemed pretty obvious that Kubrick would have had some full frontal there.

[Grouchy]

http://willem.vanderscheun.nl/willem/film/images/165732__gigolo_l.jpg

I did it. Rewatched it.

I don't think it's a perfect film, but it's ambition is extraordinary and it's really quite moving in its own twisted way. I could also sense that Kubrick would have taken some scenes in a completely different way, and maybe some of them (like Dr. Hobby talking to David near the end) would have benefitted from that more calculated approach. Specially since I think the film falls a little into overscoring by John Williams.

Other than that, it's as amazing as it always us for me since I saw it on theaters. Epic in a way few science-fiction movies are. I think a lot of the genre that's made in Hollywood is simply an action film with a loose sci-fi premise. Instead, the script of this movie is intelligent, complex and overreaching in the amount of subjects it touches. The Flesh Fair sequence and the one in the moon before it are some of the most intense apocalyptic shit I've ever seen.

Something I didn't remember was that it had so many stars doing voice-over work - Robin Williams, Ben Kingsley, Meryl Streep and Chris Rock all do the voice of several machine characters. I'm not sure it was necessary, since I didn't even notice until the end credits.

I went through the challenge and I stay firmly on the positive side. David's journey is the best movie Spielberg has ever done next to Close Encounters.

[Dukefrukem]

I do need to rewatch this. And my hate for this movie probably stemmed from some inaccurate information about Spielberg's trying too hard to honor Kubrick's style. The fact remains there's no way for me to accept that ending. I just really really really hate the ending.

[Pop Trash]

I finally bought this on DVD for ten bucks. I'll watch it again this week and let ya'll know my thoughts. I believe this will be my fourth time through.

Some of my thoughts after the fourth time. SPOILERS are in here, but I am assuming most everyone here has seen AI at least once:

1. Haley Joel Osment and Jude Law are both great (particularly Osment) and give two of their best performances. Maybe their best period.

2. The first and third acts (at the home and in submerged NYC) are the best acts IMO. The third act in particular seems the most disturbing and weird (and hence Kubrickian) The scene where David kills "himself" twice is headspinning: First when he decapatates the other David and second when he intentionally drops off the side of the building into the water in some sort of confused robo-suicide attempt.

3. The second act (at the flesh fair and Rouge City) is quite strong as well with the only noticeable flaw being Chris Rock's random voice showing up to do a cameo. It's a minor flaw since he only has like one line. I also love how deeply sad many of the mechas are in this scene. Spielberg generates lots of empathy towards them and I love how they are so driven by their programming, as if they are lost and have an existential crisis if they aren't serving their purpose. Case in point: the French mecha nanny, who despite being forced into certain doom seems to only care about the possibility of being David's nanny. And then there is David himself, who's sole existance is determined by whether or not his mother loves him. He's like the fuckin' terminator of maternal love.

4. John Williams is his own best friend and his own worst enemy. Most of this score is lovely with an unusual (for Williams anyways) modernist bent of repetitive notes similar to Steve Reich or Phillip Glass. But in the final moments of the film he switches to overly saccharine major key irritation which brings us to...

5. The controversial final act. And I have some comments/questions for those of you who have seen it recently. Here's my interpretation of the events that transpire: The mechas/aliens are indeed an advanced "race" of mechas. And I like the previous posters idea that since they are robots they don't have to stay on earth and would then be both aliens and mechas. Perhaps they moved on to other locales and went back to earth to discover their origins. In which case, William Hurt is their God (literally their maker) and then David would be a Jesus figure of sorts. They build David something like a future version of a movie theater. In which, using David's memories, they recreate the house he grew up in. Also, using a lock of the mother's hair courtesy of Teddy (which strikes me as a bit of a deus-ex-machina, but it's a minor flaw) they recreate David's mother. Here's where I get confused. The mother can only live for one day after which she essentially dies in her sleep. This seems like a bit of pseudo-science, but no matter, it's not like the first time a sci-fi movie has had convinient pseudo-science. From my interepretation, the advanced mechas/aliens essentially do some bio-programming on this version of David's mother. They program her to have no memory of her husband or real son, or her previous life at all, only David. They also program her to love David for the first time in her "life." Essentially this mother (or mother figure clone) has the tables turned on her. She becomes a programmed bio-robot who only lives for 24 hours, whereas before she was the one who was programming David to love her. It's an interesting dichatomy. The movie closes with David clutching his now dead mother, satisfied that the only reason he ever existed has been fulfilled. Now, where and what David does now is open to interpretation. Does he die now that his objective has been fulfilled? Does he go off with the advanced mecas to live as some kind of demi-god in whatever corner of the universe they live in? Who knows? It's a bit like asking what happens to Arnold if he fulfilled his objective to kill Sarah Connor in the first Terminator movie.

Well, there's my long-winded thoughts on this endlessly facinating motion picture.

[BuffaloWilder]

Interesting comment on the making-of feature, regarding that: "He only really finally becomes human when he dies, because that's really the only thing we all have in common."

[Ivan Drago]

I don't have to rewatch A.I. to be sure whether or not it still floors me emotionally every time I watch it. There's a personal connection between the film and I, so I love it more than others but it's still a well-made, Kubrick-esque masterpiece from Spielberg.

[Mara]

Netflix is shipping it to me today. I haven't watched it since I saw it in theaters, and my reaction then was decidedly lukewarm.