A.I. tries to be many things all at once. It succeeds at this, although
it is a hindrance throughout the film, weighing it down into murky
depths of obscurity.
Did I like the movie? Well, yes, indeed I did. Is it a good movie?
Yes, too, it is this. However, is it a movie that everyone must see
and will love? Definitely not. Only a certain kind of person can enjoy
this movie. A person who likes both Spielberg and Kubrick, which
is no easy feat. Both moviemakers are talented visionaries, but
their visions are wildly different.
Spielberg is very introspective, focusing on emotions as the keys
to his stories. Kubrick's approach is more plot-oriented. He sees
his characters as parts of the background, the scenery, the bigger
picture. Spielberg, on the other hand, goes to painstaking lengths
to focus his camera not on the large external picture, but deep
inside the characters inhabiting his story, their very souls for all to
see. He films from the inside-out, while Kubrick does the opposite.
And that's what A.I. is: a movie opposite of itself, a conundrum, a
complete and utter mystery.
But it works. It is brave and austere, but tender and innocent at the
same time. It reaches for many levels, but as it does, it also
reaches many plateaus. It tries for so much, but it has set its
expectations too high. Nonetheless, the film achieves many
things, even if greatness isn't one of them.
The movie is divided into three segments (which I call): `Mommy',
`Gigolo Joe', and `Submerged'. `Mommy' is sentimental Spielberg, pushing emotion and tugging heartstrings to the very
limit. It was touching, to a certain extent, but not everyone will find it
pleasing. Sentimentalists will adore it; mothers will cherish it; men
who are insecure about their sexuality will abhor it (as they abhor
many complex things). The plot focuses mainly on the `mecha,'
David, programmed to love and struggling to fit into a normal
human family, yearning for the love his gives out to be returned to
him by `Mommy'. It is Haley Joel Osment's shining moment. It is
his best work to date (a pretty large statement for an adolescent).
`Gigolo Joe' is Kubrick, although I am not sure to the extent of his
involvement in the production. I have read that he penned the
original script, however credit is not given, and I don't know how
much of his original concept is salvaged by Spielberg in this
production. `Gigolo Joe' screams Kubrick to me, simply through
it's madness, it's chaos, and most importantly it's magnetism.
The main character, besides Osment's David, is a love-making
model mecha, Gigolo Joe, played charmingly and deliciously by
Jude Law. For a robot who was programmed without emotions, he
evokes emotion from those he makes contact with: the women he
pleasures, David, and the audience. Joe, strangely enough, has
characters of human emotion even when he logically shouldn't,
which could be considered a flaw in the film, but how could it be
any other way? The movie places itself in a tight corner by making
artificial human beings with artificial emotions as its lead
characters, because how is a human audience supposed to relate
to such artificiality? To get around this problem, Spielberg and Co.
simply avoid the fact that the emotions, like the intelligence, are
artificial. Mechas are given distinct personalities, and with these
personalities inevitably come emotions, and I accept it, as will
most. This portion of the movie is definitely my favorite. The Flesh
Fair alone is worth the trip to the video rental store, and a cameo
by Chris Rock is one of the highlights of the film (fifteen seconds
out of 2 hours and 26 minutes).
The third and final segment, `Submerged', places David in
Manhattan, his birthplace. This part of the movie could have been a
lot shorter, and the ending could have been a little less sappy, for
my particular tastes. It is too clean, and doesn't seem to fit in with
the rest of the film. Whereas the rest is choppy and chaotic (very
befitting of the subject at hand), the final scenes of the film seem
to come from a fairy tale where happy endings are guaranteed. I
disapprove of the tidiness of the ending, but not of the sentiment
behind it. Spielberg wants to dearly give his hero the one thing in
the world he yearns for, and he has found a way to do that without
being corny or manipulative. That is truly appreciated by the
viewing audience, but the easiness to which the ending comes, to
how David earns his prize does not mesh with the rest of the film.
It is at it's core a heroic quest, and the epiphany that the hero must
encounter by the end of the tale is not evident, which sadly takes
away from the rest of the film.
When the ending is less than perfect, it tarnishes everything that
came before it. Where it should be poignant and thought- provoking, the final scenes of A.I. seem to be instead targeted to a
child who needs everything explained to him. A movie that tackles
a subject as deep and ambiguous as artificial intelligence should
have an ending just as esoteric and cryptic.
Although I might sound disappointed, I am giving this movie a
good review. It is worth seeing, and Spielberg once again creates
a visual, sometimes disturbing, accomplishment. Despite a few
flaws, both minor and major, Artificial Intelligence is still a movie
that imprints unforgettable images into the mind and asks
undeniably important questions. It tries desperately to answer
those questions, but it is in search of those alluding answers that
the film ultimately finds fault. Sometimes the answers are better
left unsaid.
0 out of 1 found this helpful.
Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Tell Your Friends