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.