Printable View
This weekend Ebert & Roeper did a show on the best of 2002. Each had interesting picks. 5 of the films haven't screened in Canada yet, so the jury is still out for me.
Their picks for best film? Pretty SAFE choices, boys!
E: Minority Report
R: Gangs of New York
Minority Report is not a safe bet for best picture. In reviewing my movie review of June 28, 2002, I pointed out the poor quality of special effects, particularly the futuristic cars, and the number of flaws in the plot as well as the style over substance at the beginning of the movie. To be the best movie of year, such blemishes make it unlikely that this movie can be considere the "best." See my review at: http://us.imdb.com/CommentsShow?0181689-297
I agree. I was just referring to people disagreeing with Ebert-it would be a safe choice for a LIST of the best films. NOT the oscars.
I would love Gangs of New York to win Best Picture, but in my gut I fear it won't. I think word has permeated Hollywood that Scorsese will get his best director oscar (finally). I just hope those voters (and there are a hell of a lot of young actors voting) can smarten up and give the man some time on stage for a standing O in march.
Who will win best picture? A little harder to guess this year, but in a pool, my pick is About Schmidt.
Best Picture - My feeling is that it will be About Schmidt or Far From Heaven....I preferred the latter but liked both.
Roepert and Ebert really going out on a limb there...
You've put your finger on the year's most overrated movies (not counting "The Hours"), but you are forgetting what a downer they both are. My bet is the Academy will look elsewhere; I certainly hope so, not that either isn't worth watching, and not that the Oscars often go to any of my personal choices.
"Gangs of New York" and "Minority Report" are neither of them successful artistically or in popularity. E and R were rewarding their directors an A for Effort, that's all.
I acknowledge the "A" for effort on Minority Report, but truth be told, I WALKED OUT.
The film was more than halfway over and I just wasn't into it. Great to look at (no shortage of visual splendor) it just had no juice for me. Jaws & A.I. will always be my favorite Spielberg films.
I was scratching my head when Ebert called it a masterpiece.
I agree: since the 70's, the Academy has rarely chosen to honor films that I think were worthy. I can think of 4 only:
The Godafther
One Flew Over The Cuckoo's nest
Amadeus
The Last Emperor
(A case could be made for The Deer Hunter, Gandhi, Platoon, Schindler's List & American Beauty, but I digress)
Cannes is usually bang-on accurate with the films it honors. (NO Palm D'or WINNER for 1975? PLEASE!)
In my mind I've given it to Barry Lyndon..
Again I find you strike a cord because I love AI (I just rewatched AI at home on DVD and still find it enchanting, magical, and extremely though-provoking), and I have no opinion on Jaws (at the time it was the kind of thing I'd avoid and I've never gone back and watched it through). You were smart to walk out on Minority Report. Why didn't I think of that? But Spielberg thoroughly redeemed himself with Catch Me If You Can, arguably less "flawed," but less wonderful, than AI. Cannes is quite another animal, isn't it?
I will add my sentiments for the great film making of A.I. and even Jaws for its time.
A.I. was clearly misunderstood by many people.
And while Jaws added nothing new to movies, it set a standard for popular mainstream movies by incorporating all of the movie making tricks of the trade from the past that made movies popular - the scare factor, the cast of characters (a scientist, an everyman, the rebell, the girl, and the politician), the humor, the science and the art of something. There was something for everyone, well balanced and edited into the movie with an artist touch. Jaws packaged the classic elements of the perfect movie for box office receipts and the general public - suggestive of the blockbusters to come.
Chris, you should see Jaws again. I hadn't seen it since I was 12 last month, and it is a great piece of entertainment.
Once Spielberg has you (the scene where that night swimmer chick gets the rope-a-dope) you ARE LOCKED. And tricks is right (thanks tabuno)- steven is a magician at keeping you alert to the fact that there is a shark out there that is ready to eat boats.
Like they said in the documentary- when you finally get a glimpse of that great white, you jump back two feet! The film would have been (as Polanski said) "a joke with no puch-line" if the shark wasn't scary. Steve pulled out all the stops. Especially when Shaw gets eaten!
He scares for the whole film then ends on a high-great work. Bravo SS. (The film looks & feels dated, but no big deal-the story works)
It's a bit of a mystery to me why AI got such short shrift with the critics. As far as I know only one major one really praised it. That was Andrew Sarris in the New York Observer, who was almost the lone voice of real admiration for something that to me seemed, and still seems, quite exceptional. But Sarris is one of our most passionate writers about movies, and his stand is important. (To see Sarris's original comment go to http://www.observer.com/pages/story.asp?ID=4478. ) Sarris's review takes note right away of the fact that the movie is a collaboration of Kubrick in spirit with Spielberg, and he calls it "a fabulous fable," which it is. He also takes note of the fact that this movie is too strong for children, which it also is. In fact I was watching part of it with my (middle aged) sister recently and she practically ran from the room during the Flesh Fair sequence, and she never came back, because she found it, and the whole movie, too disturbing to bear. There is so much powerful stuff in AI, maybe that's why so many critics chose to reject it. Despite the similarity to the Pinocchio and Frankenstein stories, AI really contains a lot of material that is very fresh and challenging, stuff that's extremely relevant to our lives and future prospects. It's hot stuff, and was too hot to handle, I guess.
Given my admiration for Spielberg at his best, I guess I need to go back and watch Jaws, if he's really a master there too. I'll consider that a duty.
We've turned turtle into a Spielberg rant page...
no matter. I could write a thesis on why A.I. is incredible. Steven reached the "wonder' level that only he can do with this one.
I may seem to use the word masterpiece a lot, but I'm careful when I drop it on a film. A.I. is probably the only Spielberg film I would in all confidence lay it on. I was completely riveted by A.I. You believe Haley Osment is a lost robot. (kid should have gotten an oscar nom.)
"Teddy" destroys the likes of Jar Jar Binks. Even the toy's line delivery is chilling: You will break".
Gigolo Joe is just a joy to see in action. (Jude Law could play a mime if he wanted)
The visuals? Blade Runner meets The Wizard of Oz. Rouge City is lit up better than Vegas. I could go on and on...THIS IS a masterpiece.
A.I. is one of those cult movies that does not have a general audience to see it. It's not a children's movie. It's not a romance or typical drama. It's not an action movie or a traditional thriller. It's not even a light comedy with the little boy and his sidekick. This movie really is a dark and serious sci fi movie that took audiences by surprise. This is no cute E.T. movie. There are many human characters that we can't sympathize with. The movie, in fact, would be better watched by people of artificial intelligence than by human beings who really don't come across very well in this movie. Even William Hurt, in the end, is a bad guy who doesn' even understand what he created. So what's to like in this movie, especially, for the vast majority of those who can actually pay to go see the movie in the 22nd century? Unless, you're some alienated person who can actually look passed the images and dizzying cinematography, you probably won't like A.I. - it's too beyond humanity to appreciate I'm afraid. I'm going to have to look for my human birth certificate to see if it's real.
You guys are keeping me up way past my bedtime, but I have to say something more about AI too. The movie is too universal in its meanings to call it a cult movie. AI examines and twists and turns and redefines in a very moving way what “human” means. The movie goes beyond the human but it also delves very deeply into what it is to be human. David, the “mecha”, is more human that his “real” parents, who fail him, just as we humans so often fail other species because of lack of sympathetic understanding--except when his mother comes back to him artificially for a single magical and unrepeatable day, for that one brief reconstructed moment she is kind and loving. David’s longing to be a “real boy” is sentimental and sweet, yes, but it’s also a heart wrenching equivalent of what Frankenstein was all about, the longing at the same time to be a higher being, to be with one’s own kind, and to be accepted back into Paradise. When it comes to explanations of why this movie didn’t “succeed” when it’s actually a masterpiece, I guess I just don’t get it. It’s true that maybe AI didn’t fit market expectations, but how can you know? If it had been given the right spin it would have. No, you’re right, it’s too sad and too alienating and strange to be a big hit, but I wasn’t talking about that; I was talking about why 99% of the critics dissed it when it’s so remarkable.
I didn’t think Haley Joel Osment should have received an Oscar nomination for his performance; I thought he should have flat out gotten the Oscar for Best Actor. He is luminous and magical in the role of David. He can make me cry and not many actors of any age can do that. He has a quality in the movie that is beyond “acting.” You can’t explain it. He gives off an emanation of purity and longing and love that can’t be described or accounted for in technical terms. Very remarkable, unforgettable. Needless to say, he “is” the movie. Extraordinary. And wonderful directing. Sublime.
Rottentomatoes.com collected 162 reviews of A.I., 121 or 75% were considered "fresh". Even some of the lamentable "rotten" reviews had positive comments. Most "critics" don't go beyond what-is-it-about-'n should-U-see-it. A good critic,steeped in film culture and willing to delve deep into a film's meaning, technique,etc. is a godsend. Pardon my laziness and ponder these observations from my favorite critic.Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Knipp: why 99% of the critics dissed it when it’s so remarkable.
"A.I. is the most philosophical film in Kubrick's canon, the most intelligent in Spielberg's, and possibly the film with most contemporary relevance that either one has made since Dr. Strangelove"
"Is the cloned Monica(mom), resurrected and corrected to satisfy a robot's programmed cravings, much closer to "human" than David, created and programmed by man in his own image? Is the love of either character genuine? The line separating life from death, being from nothingness, remains as ambiguous as the line separating orga from mecha. It's a line very much like the one separating viewers from the characters in a film."
"When the Blue Fairy comes back for an encore inside the suburban home, I'm reminded of the monolith slab reappearing inside the hotel room just before Bowman gets reborn as Star Child. The Fairy and the slab are both mental projections of the protagonists, but whereas 2001 ends with tragic rebirth, A.I. ends with the implication of sweet annihilation."
"The prime issue for the modern world may be our willingness to treat non-living matter as if it were alive and people as if they were objects. The issue is raised every time we see someone walking down the street talking on a mobile phone and ignoring everyone around, every time we hear a mecha voice on an answering machine."
Jonathan Rosenbaum
The Chicago Reader
Across the street apparently, Ebert's review of A.I. (June 29, 2001) reveals Ebert's refusal to give David any real human characteristics, only our weak human projections of ourselves onto a mechanical machine. While he lauds the movie and its cinematic greatness, he serious faults the substance of the movie's insinuation that artificial intelligence can translate into anything that human should be really concerned about.
It's difficult to distinguish between what is real and what we "think" or "perceive" is real. Do we, as humans, create reality or is reality out there? Are emotions, morality objective actual existing phenomena with an independent reality other than what we give it? Is David nothing more than our own imbued imaginative projections of what we think ought to exist? Or is David really something more, a moral being in its own right? Ebert had no problem, had no hesitation to dismiss A.I., however well it was put together, because in the end he just didn't believe. Perhaps, many of the other critics didn't either.
I have a few BFI classics books, and Rosenbaum did the one for Jarmusch's Dead Man. I can only hope to be as perceptive as Jon.
Like Lester Bangs, his writing is something worth reading for itself, not just the films he talks about. I always look forward to his top ten in Sight & Sound. He and I have the same "likes". great critic.
Very fine observations by Rosenbaum. I’m glad to have this drawn to my attention. I’m also ever more glad to be so wrong about the percentages on AI and the critics. Thanks.
I get such joy from your comments. If there's any rockers out there, the best rock'n'roll book ever is Lester Bangs' Psychotic Reactions and Carburetor Dung.Quote:
Originally posted by Johann
[B]I have a few BFI classics books, and Rosenbaum did the one for Jarmusch's Dead Man.Like Lester Bangs, his writing is something worth reading for itself
DEAD MAN is simply the last great Western and one of my favorite films of the 1990s. It's being reissued on DVD at a lower list price on 3/3/03. Maybe folks will want to talk about it. I wonder what you think about complaints that its pace is too slow. I will search for Rosenbaum's BFI book.
Dead Man is in my top ten of all-time faves for good reason.
When films get poetic, I get emotional. Dead Man is pure poetry, and I hunker down when I prepare to watch it. I ususally listen to some JJ Cale or Jefferson Airplane's last great album "Long John Silver"with a little "talkin' to Bob" if you know what i mean..
Machine is a legendary town like Tombstone, but I don't think Wyatt Earp would want to move there.
"Stupid fucking white man" -nobody (he who talk much, say nothing)
"Dear Man" would also be one of my favorites of the last decade.
Sorry: I meant DEAD MAN!
"William Blake! You were a poet! and a painter!"
This flick is full of atmosphere and great ambiance. Largely due to Neil Young's incredible soundtrack. I made a tape of the soundtrack from the library-Depp & Farmer speak throughout.
On a sidenote, Gary Farmer is a great supporting canadian actor. (You can see him with DeNiro & Norton in "The Score"-which was shot in Montreal. And again in jarmusch's "Ghost Dog") He is a well respected native actor in Canada-like Graham Greene. (See "The Education of Little Tree" to see Graham in fine form)
And how about the Legend of Johnny Depp? This guy has become somewhat of a hero of mine. I always look forward to Johnny's new films. (Chocolat sucked, tho. Sorry, Johnny)
The Man Who Cried is waiting for me to get home to watch it tonight. I'm pretty excited....Depp, Turturro, and my honey Christina. What a feisty little vixen she is... rrrrwowwrrr
Ricci rocks my world. If you havent seen Pumpkin, hunt it down. Your Ricci appreciation will grow beyond measure.
Depp - been a big fan since 21 Jumpstreet. What a show. Peter Deluise, Holly Robinson, Dustin Nguyen and the Deppster rocking the highschool halls in search of illicit activity.
P
Depp might not agree with you. He described Jump Street as "fast food." But of course the cornel of genius was there I guess.
I love the name Dustin Nguyen.
And of course Dustin Nguyen aka Vinh Van Tran playing Japanese character, Harry Ioki made things all the more culturally complex. Yeah, 21 was fastfood, but I was a wee 13 yrs old when it came out. Had me pretty excited about impending highschool experiences. Unfortuantely, the reality was much less exciting....
I recall seeing 21 Jump Street after school in jr. high (along with Degrassi-for those canadians in the house)
Depp said when he took a break to shoot Cry-Baby with John Waters he was energized by making movies again. (He contemplated quitting acting when Oliver Stone cut almost all of his scenes from Platoon)
Then he got a "huge break" when Tim Burton agreed to cast him as Edward Scissorhands in a coffee shop in L.A.
Did you know he turned down the lead roles in Speed & Interview With A Vampire?
I have studied Steven Spielberg's career my whole filmatic life. I emulated his film style while I attended film school. When he is on, his films are not only entertaining but poignant. His successes are brilliant, while his failures are disasterous. He can point with pride to Jaws, Close Encounters, ET, Schindler's List, Raiders, Jurassic Park, et al. However he can also turn away with shame with 1941, Hook, and I'm afraid to say, A.I.
The problems with A. I. are almost too numerous to go into but some of the most obvious are the subject matter itself. While a rather interesting vehicle for Kubrick and his eccentric tastes, given Spielburg's history, torture and child abuse are not usual Spielberg subject matters. Kubrick loves to delve into controversial, while Spielberg just wants you to laugh and cry and possibly pick up a thing or two.
A. I. was a difficult film to both watch, and experience. Film is a medium of experience. I remember going opening day. In the audience were not just film critics but great fans of Steven's. By about the second hour, I noticed how people were squirming uncomfortably in their seats. It seemed wrong somehow to watch this poor child going through the most unspeakable fear and terror and then have the medium call itself "entertainment". This is a perfect example of "The Emperor's New Clothes". Only no one had the guts to tell him he picked the wrong script.
There can be no doubt of his craft as a filmmaker, despite the premature crowning of a Lifetime Achievement Award by AFI. Steven will continue to delight audiences with his magic and skill. "Minority Report" and "Catch Me..." are much better examples of when Steven is on. Steven was off for A. I.
To Cinemabon: I'm glad to have A.I. come up again even if your take on it is different from mine. I know it is flawed, but "horribly flawad" and "disastrous" are a bit strong. I find the subject matter, which you think a mistake from the start, immensely stimulating. There are lots of longeurs, boring parts, excessive contrasts of disparate segments, but so are there in 2001: A Space Odyssey, and though opinions vary on that one it has its undying fans, of which I am one. Some of the slowness of A.I. is very Kubrickesque. The whole epic scale of the piece is Kubrickesque. If you don't think Kubrick a master, then we part company completely. On A.I. I am aware that I am out on a limb, though Andrew Sarris is out there with me! It just bombed from the get-go and though more critics were kind to it than I had realized, as I've learned from this discussion, it just didn't get taken seriously overall. I just watched part of it with my sister and she found the early part of it too disturbing and couldn't finish watching the Flesh Fair episode. It calls for a lot of openness and patience and if you stick with it, it can be immensely moving, as well as thought provoking. Maybe some day people will go back to it and reassess it. Surely you will grant that technically it has exquisite and wonderful things happening.
I don't agree, and don't think you would really say, that when we go to the movies we should never, ever be subjected to a painful story, or that it's true as you say that "It seemed wrong somehow to watch this poor child going through the most unspeakable fear and terror and then have the medium call itself 'entertainment'." Not all movies are fun. You could say exactly the same thing about The Pianist, but you'd be wrong. The medium doesn't always define "entertainment" in the sense of "fun" or "a lighthearted distraction." Film can be deeply troubling and that can acccount for some of its finest moments.
Spielberg is a popular artist and yet Schindler's List is hardly a "fun" picture. And he has dealt before with suffering and alienation of small non human creatures -- E.T. I doubt that he would disown A.I. The whole point is that David is capable of suffering, and loneliness and longing, because he has been made capable of loving. His suffering is the point.
While a film like Schindler's List is painful to watch because of the gruesome torture endured by Jews during World War II, the story is also a factual one. Facing up to certain facts can be a painful experience. Take the Spielberg film which I consider to be his break out film. Honored by the Academy with eight nominations, the voters however completely ignored "The Color Purple", which to my mind is also a "painful" film to watch. The African American has endured injury after insult in this country. Spielberg's film showed an absolutely brilliant take on black life in the early twentieth century based on Alice Walkers insightful and beautiful novel (which comes out in special edition next week on DVD).
Kubrick's films "Paths of Glory" and "A Clockwork Orange" are also 'painful' films to watch. Mostly because they show the frailties of human beings in the glare of the media spotlight. Both films are exceptional examples of Kubrick's great cinematic genius.
A.I. was an uncompleted work by Kubrick. So he was never able to complete it beyond the script level. Would he have made the film Spielberg made? I doubt it. This movie had a certain sick cuteness that was not Stanley's cup of tea.
Welcome back Cinemabon. I missed reading your posts. Even when(especially when?), as it turns out, we have more disgreements than I thought. As you can tell from my post on page 1, I find AI thought-provoking image-making of the highest quality. We also have one or two philosophical differences: basically I WANT cinema to tell me about "the most unspeakable fear and terror". For me, Cinema should never call itself "entertainment"; that's why we have television. Basically I'm a pessimist snob and you're not.
I like how Chris describes how Kubrick A.I. and as such it is to Spielberg's credit that such a description is given to the movie. I think that Clockwork Orange had a certain "cute sickness" to it too as Cinemabon describes A.I. It's possible that by being so enamored with Spielberg one might get to focused on the person and one particular style and expectation so that when a movie comes along that like a book adaptation, if the movie doesn't reflect the book then the movie is bad and as with Spielberg, if one of his movies like A.I. isn't like Spielberg then it's a bad movie. And well many people as well as children probably went to see A.I. intending to see a completely different type of movie.
Personally, I enjoyed the movie completely, and liked how the humans ended up the emotional imbeciles when it came to other life forms and being human-centric to the point of extinction. It is A.I. who really is the saving grace of the movie and a credit to mankind's ability to create and surpass man himself.
A.I was a huge risk for Spielberg and he should be commended for doing what he did with the materials Jan Harlan gave him.
Trying to be "Kubrickian" is a task no director can really take up without knowing the man and his methods. Spielberg was good friends with Stanley, so I gave him the benefit of the doubt even though I thought it was a major mistake.
In truth, Spielberg couldn't sniff Kubrick's director's chair. He shot that film so fast that I felt there was no way he could come close to a "Kubrick feel". Kubrick's films took so long to make that they had an etheral quality about them. A.I. has glimpses of that, and that's all I really needed. I have an inner smile knowing that people were squirming in their seats during the movie. As soon as I saw those waves and Ben Kingsley's voiceover, I knew it was going to be great.
I'm glad some others are beginning to speak up for A.I. I just cannot see this film as a writeoff. There is so much in it that is beautiful and thought provoking. I'd rather have failure on this level than many successes. A.I. is also "Kubrickian" in the grandeur of its failure, for a number of Kubrick's films are grand failures, or have been called that.
I also want to say that Oscar Jubis has expressed better what I said more timidly earlier: "I WANT cinema to tell me about "the most unspeakable fear and terror". For me, Cinema should never call itself "entertainment"; that's why we have television." The difference in my position is possibly that I wish to cast my net as widely as possible and I have plenty of room also for "Cinema" that does "Call itself 'entertainment,'" but it need never feel obligated to do so. If it takes you somewhere you've never been to before and makes you think and feel new things, it doesn't need to "call itself 'entertainment.'" Example: Michael Haneke's "La Pianiste." It was certainly not a fun watch, but it was wonderfully acted and it took me somewhere I'd never been before; I was drawn in, and made to think, and it was intelligent. When it was over, I was left impressed by the way the director challenges viewers (as he does in "Code Unknown") to think, make connections that aren't obvious. I walked out feeling as though I'd been given my money's worth and then some. Likewise with "A.I." There was so much to think about. It never occured to think after "A.I." "this is a flop." That didn't describe my viewing experience at all.
When a friend and I left the theatre after A.I. (we were last to leave) the manager asked us what we thought. I said it was a masterpiece and I still feel that way. We waited until the final credits rolled to see "For Stanley Kubrick". It was worth it.
I will always love A.I. It represents all the great things about cinema: story, editing, visuals, acting, music, and attitude. The Flesh Fair with Kid Rock was totally un-Spielberg. (another reason why his huge fan base were baffled) He made a film that didn't cater to his career- I wish he'd do it more often.
I'm sure Kubrick would have approved.
Bravo! Thank you.
While I am not one to conceed defeat, I will admit to intelligence of this group. I am not one either to want to sit and let a film lull me into comfortability (is that a word?). Still, I am disturbed by certain images of violence as "entertainment". Please don't misunderstand. If you take a film like, "Potemkin" which used violence to demonstrate the brutality of the Russian Army, or "All Quiet on the Western Front" which uses violence to demonstrate the futility of war, or "Platoon" which uses violence to demonstrate the horrors of a senseless war in Viet Nam... that kind of violence I am for, because it is a tool of the filmmakers to emphasize a point in the story telling process.
What disturbs me about A. I., then I promise I will shut up about it, because too many people LOVE this movie, is this:
Images of children suffering. That's it in a nutshell. Personally for me, I can't stand to see children suffer. I didn't like the way those images were exploited to further a plot device. They had nothing to do with telling the story. I hated Steven for making me watch that part so I could see the rest of the story. Perhaps that is my weakness. I also find disturbing the overwhelming acceptance of the level of violence in "Gladiator", but I also found myself alone in that camp as well. Ok, enough said. I find everyone's comments here a welcome addition to the voice of film comment. Please feel free to cut me down and chop me to pieces but....
not the kids. please....
I don't think that it's possible or even reasonable to avoid the issue and minimize the media spotlight on a very real and huge problem of violence against children. Today, in our real world, hundreds of thousands of children are dying, brutally tortured, made to do slave labor and forced into prostitution all over the world, including the United States (though illegally). A.I. only presented a future, fictional possiblility that did not reflect reality and was not targeted towards children in the audience. It represented the possible degradation of the human race, its subsequent fall from grace and the actual rise of artificial intelligence to a level beyond mankind - beyond the cruelty. As with gladiators of old, of today's extreme sports that young people participate in today, it is only through maintaining a stream of hard-edged images, that partly reflect reality, and A.I. I feel portraying this potential future can a message without condoning it (even if the humanity around it does) can the clear message get out about discrimination and prejudice, the evil that mankind might create and devolve into.
I agree. A.I. is very delicate in dealing with the issue of cruelty to children when one compares the story with what actually has gone on and continues to go on with real children. The mother after all believed that her true birth child was in danger from the mecha boy David. But then the issue arises that David, having been made capable of love, is also therefore capable of suffering if his love is not returned; and if there can be cruelty to animals, why can't there be cruelty to robots, particularly when the robots resemble humans in so many respects as David does? The problem does not end there, however, since there is also the question of how a human can come to love a robotic creation that is not organic, no matter how complex, and how doing so can be regarded as healthy or normal? These are issues that are really coming upon us more rapidly than we realize, and A.I. is the ultimate test of the morality of human technology -- of issues that were crudely but powerfully laid out in the Frankenstein story. I was relieved to hear in a discussion on the radio today with an expert on A.I conducted by Dr. Michiyo Kaku, that it may be likely that humans will neither dominate nor be dominated by but simply merge with their A.I. creations. Because if they do not, there is this danger, that we will either create or become slaves, and that our worst impulses will be encouraged to come out with the excuse that "it's only a robot, not a human," or "it's not organic," or some other such justificaiton for inhuman behavior toward our own creations, themselves the fruits of our own hubris.
As I have said here before, A.I. is a thought provoking film, and the story has endless ramifications. To reject the story out of hand as incoherent or ugly is to miss its delicacy and complexity and the richness of its implications.