`A.I.' is a flawed masterpiece, a title often placed on the wrong films. `Blade Runner' is a similar film that deserves the moniker, as well as the former. Both have haunting and at times devastating effects, yet have noticeable faults that can not be excused. Of course, imperfection was inevitable with this film being a Kubrick/Spielberg collaboration of sorts. Kubrick influenced the film greatly, as it was to be perhaps his final production. Unfortunately, the cinematic genius died before he could produce much, and Spielberg took over. The two have completely different styles. Spielberg is an audience pleaser and Kubrick is pessimistic. As a result, there is a noticeable mixing of styles. The film at times is relentlessly depressing and trite at others. However, these are not the film's big flaws; I found the collision of Spielberg and Kubrick to result in a lack of political and social messages. For a film with an ambitious plot like this, that is inexcusable.
Haley Joel Osment, once more seeming like he is 7 years old as opposed to 13, plays David. David looks identical to a human boy and behaves mostly like one, too. However, he is a `mecha,' or an android. The time is in the future, and polar ice caps have melted, devastating cities such as New York. As an attempt to solve population and labor crises, androids are developed. However, David is of a revolutionary type of android. His purpose is to act as a pet of sorts. He is a mechanical son, designed to genuinely love his owner(s). Upon creation by the hopeful Dr. Hobby, David is adopted by the Swinton family of Maria, Henry, and their son Martin, who is recovering from a near lethal illness. David is programmed to love Maria, and he loves her more than anything else in his world, but he inadvertently wreaks martial havoc amongst the Swintons and is forced to flee. Accompanied only by the `supertoy' teddy bear Teddy, David wanders a strange world only to find a group of androids fleeing for their lives. It is here that he meets Gigolo Joe, a suave android prostitute who accompanies David everywhere. The two then search the hostile world in order to help David achieve his dreams of becoming a real boy so that he can return to Maria and be loved.
Both characteristics of the two aforementioned directors are visible. Kubrick's perpetually negative, cynical and perhaps even nihilistic views are captured in multiple images. Throughout Kubrick's films, stunning images can be found, and `A.I.' is deeply reminiscent of those visuals. For instance, shots of a bridges with massive stone statues used for support, an underwater Coney Island, blanketed by encroaching seaweed, and Rouge City, a smorgasbord of brilliant electric lights and skyscraping nightclubs, enrapture the viewer. Another extremely haunting shot sequence is the view of a nearly submerged New York City, with only a handful of skyscrapers protruding from the murky depths, including the hand of the Statue of Liberty. The visual portrayal of Earth in its twilight, in a state of melancholy, left me unsettled and saddened. Hours after the film, `A.I.'s' content still remained in my mind, engraved. Unfortunately, Spielberg sacrifices Kubrick's trademark scathing social messages for his own trademark audience pleasing sentimentality. For a film with a plot featuring a near-apocalypse, mass android reproduction, and the like, there is a sad absence of any socially relevant subplots, which always elevated Kubrick's films such as `A Clockwork Orange,' `2001: A Space Odyssey,' and `Dr. Strangelove' to classics. Subplots that one would think to be included yet are only hinted at are racial and ethnic bigotry, the morality of creating artificial life, and the metaphysics of being alive. Instead of forcing the viewers to question their own existence and think, Spielberg trades that uncomfortable material to his own skilled area- emotional power. David's desperate search for love brings the viewer to the film's denouement, a ludicrously contrived, yet strangely affecting trip through miles of ice and visitations with other `characters.' The film ends on such an odd note, hopelessly depressing yet somehow poignant at the same time, that final shot was etched in my mind throughout the day and the next. I turned the VCR off, moved and haunted by the film.
Of course, the film is flawed as mentioned earlier. There are multiple faults with `A.I.,' just one being the relationship between David and Gigolo Joe. The two are in constant company with each other, having met randomly, yet their relationship clicks too quickly and is never truly developed. The script fails to bind the characters together, leaving an awkward void where interaction should be. Also, Haley Joel Osment turns in a mostly good and at times superb performance, yet he once more lapses into his tendency to whisper emotional lines as if that trite behavior will wrench tears from the audience. This habit is extremely obnoxious and manipulative; any viewer touched by it should be banned from films forever. Aside from this, a lot of focus on the film has revolved around the abundance of underdeveloped subplots. While this is the case, I never felt this facet of the film to be damaging. These include a crime associated with Gigolo Joe, Dr. Hobby's obsession with David, and a few other threads that if more developed, would have served little use other than to further prolong the film. Instead, the should-have-been-subplots that I mentioned earlier were of a greater necessity to the film.
No matter how visible the scars of fault are in `A.I.,' the sheer emotional effect of the film overwhelms them. The viewer will nevertheless be stirred by this film, no matter how imperfect it is. Many loathe this wonderful film for a variety of rationales; I am a supporter. No film of 2001 has moved me as much as this, not even `In the Bedroom,' yet I am not quite sure if I am ready to declare `A.I.' the best film of the year. It may be. Surely, it is one of them.
Haley Joel Osment, once more seeming like he is 7 years old as opposed to 13, plays David. David looks identical to a human boy and behaves mostly like one, too. However, he is a `mecha,' or an android. The time is in the future, and polar ice caps have melted, devastating cities such as New York. As an attempt to solve population and labor crises, androids are developed. However, David is of a revolutionary type of android. His purpose is to act as a pet of sorts. He is a mechanical son, designed to genuinely love his owner(s). Upon creation by the hopeful Dr. Hobby, David is adopted by the Swinton family of Maria, Henry, and their son Martin, who is recovering from a near lethal illness. David is programmed to love Maria, and he loves her more than anything else in his world, but he inadvertently wreaks martial havoc amongst the Swintons and is forced to flee. Accompanied only by the `supertoy' teddy bear Teddy, David wanders a strange world only to find a group of androids fleeing for their lives. It is here that he meets Gigolo Joe, a suave android prostitute who accompanies David everywhere. The two then search the hostile world in order to help David achieve his dreams of becoming a real boy so that he can return to Maria and be loved.
Both characteristics of the two aforementioned directors are visible. Kubrick's perpetually negative, cynical and perhaps even nihilistic views are captured in multiple images. Throughout Kubrick's films, stunning images can be found, and `A.I.' is deeply reminiscent of those visuals. For instance, shots of a bridges with massive stone statues used for support, an underwater Coney Island, blanketed by encroaching seaweed, and Rouge City, a smorgasbord of brilliant electric lights and skyscraping nightclubs, enrapture the viewer. Another extremely haunting shot sequence is the view of a nearly submerged New York City, with only a handful of skyscrapers protruding from the murky depths, including the hand of the Statue of Liberty. The visual portrayal of Earth in its twilight, in a state of melancholy, left me unsettled and saddened. Hours after the film, `A.I.'s' content still remained in my mind, engraved. Unfortunately, Spielberg sacrifices Kubrick's trademark scathing social messages for his own trademark audience pleasing sentimentality. For a film with a plot featuring a near-apocalypse, mass android reproduction, and the like, there is a sad absence of any socially relevant subplots, which always elevated Kubrick's films such as `A Clockwork Orange,' `2001: A Space Odyssey,' and `Dr. Strangelove' to classics. Subplots that one would think to be included yet are only hinted at are racial and ethnic bigotry, the morality of creating artificial life, and the metaphysics of being alive. Instead of forcing the viewers to question their own existence and think, Spielberg trades that uncomfortable material to his own skilled area- emotional power. David's desperate search for love brings the viewer to the film's denouement, a ludicrously contrived, yet strangely affecting trip through miles of ice and visitations with other `characters.' The film ends on such an odd note, hopelessly depressing yet somehow poignant at the same time, that final shot was etched in my mind throughout the day and the next. I turned the VCR off, moved and haunted by the film.
Of course, the film is flawed as mentioned earlier. There are multiple faults with `A.I.,' just one being the relationship between David and Gigolo Joe. The two are in constant company with each other, having met randomly, yet their relationship clicks too quickly and is never truly developed. The script fails to bind the characters together, leaving an awkward void where interaction should be. Also, Haley Joel Osment turns in a mostly good and at times superb performance, yet he once more lapses into his tendency to whisper emotional lines as if that trite behavior will wrench tears from the audience. This habit is extremely obnoxious and manipulative; any viewer touched by it should be banned from films forever. Aside from this, a lot of focus on the film has revolved around the abundance of underdeveloped subplots. While this is the case, I never felt this facet of the film to be damaging. These include a crime associated with Gigolo Joe, Dr. Hobby's obsession with David, and a few other threads that if more developed, would have served little use other than to further prolong the film. Instead, the should-have-been-subplots that I mentioned earlier were of a greater necessity to the film.
No matter how visible the scars of fault are in `A.I.,' the sheer emotional effect of the film overwhelms them. The viewer will nevertheless be stirred by this film, no matter how imperfect it is. Many loathe this wonderful film for a variety of rationales; I am a supporter. No film of 2001 has moved me as much as this, not even `In the Bedroom,' yet I am not quite sure if I am ready to declare `A.I.' the best film of the year. It may be. Surely, it is one of them.
Tell Your Friends