A.I. (2001)
Steven Spielberg
USA
145 mins, color, English
Based on a short story by Brian Aldiss and a script, on which Kubrick worked for 15 years, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE (AI) is Steven Spielberg's dive into the great, and frequently explored, known. Loaded with special effects and excellent performances, the film is audacious only insofar as it bites off more than it can chew. There is little in this film that is not "borrowed" from the much superior BLADE RUNNER, except that Ridley Scott knew that the story is not in the machines that don't feel, but in the human protagonist that does. Spielberg misses this entirely and in wanting us to place our emotions with a machine, AI falters for without David's cute face there is little doubt that none of the ridiculous drama would have worked.
It could have been a thought-provoking story, that is, if you have never seen the premise and if you have never seen the treatment. But there's nothing new here: from the new Luddites, to the agonizing professor and the confused parents, it's all been done before and better. It has been done cinematically better too for I was unimpressed with the special effects (two cases in point: note how un-aerodynamically the police copter veered after striking a neon sign, and also notice how David's clothes don't move when the thin future thingie placed its hand on David's shoulder... sloppy, to say the least). There are also logical problems galore. Maybe it will be possible to recreate a human from DNA, but it certainly will not be possible to recreate their memories as well. Also, these cute boy and girl mechs that they're selling, won't they be growing up? Also, what kind of Energizer batteries did David have to last him so long?
The film wants to ask the question if loving bestows any special quality on the object and/or source of love? Will David be "human" if he is loved by real people? Do real people owe him anything because he "loves"? Can real people love a "thing"? These really are simple questions to answer. David may be cute, but he is a machine. He may not be running Windows, but he is just as lovable as one of these icons you double-click on. It does not matter if he is wired to "love" (whatever THAT means). The interesting question, and the one that the film does not ask, is whether humans are capable of making reality out of artificiality. That is, if Monica wants to believe that David is a boy and treats him like one, is it enough that in her eyes he is real? In other words, can humans project their qualities onto objects and thereby make them worth something more?
Too ponderous to be entertaining, but too flaky to be serious, AI fails on just about every dimension. The film would have been much stronger had it ended with the underwater scene. But no, Spielberg had to treat us to the entirely worthless last 30 minutes, which were so mawkish that I almost puked. The solemn voice-over narration did not help either. Not only did we get preached to, but the preacher made sure he told us what the point of the story was, lest the people who had fallen asleep missed it.
The music sucked too. Has Williams composed anything worthwhile since STAR WARS?
If you feel you have to see the film, then do so for Haley Joel Osmet's superb performance, and Jude Law's bizarre but very good character. William Hurt (Professor Hobby) is excellent in the few scenes allotted to him, and Frances O'Connor (Monica) is neurotically believable. Again, the special effects were good, but not the best (a disappointment akin to the one in PHANTOM MENACE). I would also walk out right after the underwater scene when the voice fades with "and the next day." Believe me, the film would almost make it that way. Nice teddy bear.
July 8, 2001. BLS