| . |
"A.I.: Artificial Intelligence"
(Reviewed June 15, 2001)
-
Maybe it’s appropriate that this movie about a "mecha" artificial boy seems as cobbled together and ungainly as Frankenstein’s monster. It’s not just that original "A.I." instigator Stanley Kubrick and his posthumous collaborator Steven Spielberg possess diametrically opposed artistic sensibilities (although this certainly doesn’t help matters any). It’s more that all of the movie’s various parts never meld into a believable ("organic," if you will) whole. "A.I." tries to be both icy and clinical (as were the works of the celebrated Mr. K) and shamelessly, desperately heart-tugging (little Steven’s specialty), intentions that don’t exactly complement each other. There are a few nice visuals of futuristic cityscapes, underwater scenes and computer-generated robots, and definitely some plot surprises along the way, but the story comes across a tad half-baked and more than a tad silly.
Studio publicity materials point out that Kubrick apparently corresponded at length with Spielberg about "A.I.," and that Kubrick even suggested at one point that he would produce the movie if Spielberg would direct it. This info obviously is meant to imply that Spielberg’s version comes to us with the beyond-the-grave blessing of Kubrick. The problem with that assertion is that Spielberg claims to have written the screenplay for this version of "A.I." all by his lonesome "from a screen story by Ian Watson." In other words, the Watson screenplay that Kubrick developed over all those years and years of honing and obsessing got tossed…which makes it hard to believe that what we now see onscreen could possibly be anything close to what Kubrick would have given us. (Also, it is not exactly confidence-inspiring to read that Spielberg, who has not had a screenwriting credit since 1977’s "Close Encounters," wrote his version of the "A.I." screenplay in "a mere two months.")
Said screenplay is rambling and sometimes ridiculous. "A.I." contains recycled bits and pieces from other works as wildly diverse as "Pinocchio," "2001," "Close Encounters," "Our Town," "Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome" and, God help us, even "Zardoz."
On the other hand, the movie’s "positives" include a wonderful supporting character named Teddy and some truly memorable dream-like visuals. Even with its many flaws, "A.I." still has enough good points for a "thumbs up." If nothing else, it is nothing like any other movie you are likely to see this year.
I don’t want to kill the plot for anyone who hasn’t seen the movie, so stop reading now if you don’t want to know details about things that happen. One thing the movie definitely has going for it is that it veers off onto totally unexpected tangents at least twice, so you may want to go into the theater "cold" and let the surprises be surprises.
So STOP READING RIGHT NOW, and come back after you see the movie. This review will be here.
Okay, so now I’m assuming you’re back, and you’ve seen the film. Here goes:
The first third of the movie is like one of those flat, dull episodes of the disappointing 1990s syndicated version of the "Outer Limits" TV show. It has that cheap, overly earnest, "made in Canada on a shoestring" feel. Mecha boy David’s (Haley Joel Osment) world is restricted almost entirely to a single house set, which gets rather yawnsome. Act one ends with an action that is entirely unlikely and outright preposterous. (Also, wouldn’t you think that, in a future where perfect replicas of humans can be manufactured, somebody would think to put a Lojack on the things? Or that police helicopters would be a little harder to steal? Or that rock music might have progressed beyond completely contemporary headbanger–style tunes that would be as anachronistic to those audiences as a harpsichord stadium concert would be to us? Or that sex robots wouldn’t play tinny, 1930s-era would-be "romantic" songs from bad speakers in their heads? Plot holes and inanities abound.)
Spielberg tries to give teenage boys with ADD something to look at in act two, which includes a noisy "Flesh Fair" where robots are cruelly tortured and graphically destroyed for WWF-style crowds. This section of the movie seemed remarkably cheesy, and also seemed to take place in a different universe from the events in the rest of the film. I didn’t buy that this kind of "Mad Max Lite" stuff was going on just down the road from David’s family’s tastefully elegant woodland home.
Later, David and his new friend "Gigolo Joe" (Jude Law) journey to the hedonistic Rouge City. This is where the plot went completely loopy and off the rails. Through an elaborate set of unlikely coincidences, David and Joe discover where to go to find the "Blue Fairy" who will make David a real boy. That location, and who David meets there, and what happens are all just plain weird, and not in a good way. Also, I did not believe for a second that David would be able to do what he does at the end of that scene, or that nothing would be done about it by the person who should be most interested in rectifying the situation.
The movie pulls a real shocker by not ending after that scene. But I’m not going to risk blowing the hugest surprise of all by giving away details of what happens next…because I just know that some people will have ignored my "see the movie first" advice. The two major (and I do mean MAJOR) developments that happen next are pretty "out there," and the very last scene is a sappy cheat because it contradicts what we know about a certain character from earlier in the movie. But hey…go see the thing to find out, because I ain’t tellin’.
Several things in the screenplay are not very well thought-out, or are left dangling, or seem to have been overlooked. The main shortcoming is in David’s relationship with Teddy. All the while that David is running around trying to become a "real" boy who can be loved, he seems unaware that he is not showing any love or compassion to Teddy (who, in many ways, deserves to be loved even more than David does). David whines and cries and seems to want love primarily because he feels entitled to it, not because he seems willing to sacrifice anything for anyone else. But Teddy is the character who "walks the walk" by showing what real love will make someone do for someone else, with no thought of receiving any love or even appreciation in return. Since the capacity for humans and for mechas to love is at the very heart of the movie, treating Teddy as a background scenery toy who never is regarded as anything else was a real missed opportunity.
In the same way, my main frustration with "A.I." is that it tries so artlessly to jerk tears over David’s predicament that the repeated (and very redundant) attempts become insulting. Maybe it’s because the Kubrickian-looking remnants that are left intact are so at odds with big dewy-eyed Spielberg close-ups. Or maybe I’m just a heartless bastard. Either way, I didn’t tear up even once.
So go see it for the visuals and as a change-of-pace. But don’t go expecting a masterpiece synthesis of "E.T." and "Clockwork Orange" (as I have to admit I was), or you will be very disappointed.
Back Row Grade: C-
(Return to Index)
|
. |