A.I.

A.I. is for all intents and purposes a glorified pinnochio tale. David is a robot boy, a new generation of not just thinking but feeling machines. Once imprinted onto his owner, he actually comes to love them. And this is the story of how young David tries to become more than just a robot. For, once he is a real boy he will have the true love he longs so much for.

David has numerous adventures spanning a very long time, which is actually what this film seems to do, span eons. That's not to say it's bad, in fact from a story prespective; I think it's a pretty valid concept to follow the pinnochio story. But the film just tries to do soooo much. And maybe that's why it doesn't totally work. The man who was slated to direct this film Stanley Kubrick, died after twenty years of not being able to get this one off the drawing board. And I can see why. The story is a short sci-fi number written in the 60s by Brian Aldiss. And there are a lot of obvious problems with a big screen translation. Apparently Kubrick and the writer fought venemently over plot detail for years, and in particular they could never agree on the ending. Well, once Kubrick died the property passed into the hands of Steven Speilberg. Now, his sensibilities I'm sure worked better to bring a film like this to life; but I just can't help wonder how different this story would've turned out if Kubrick had ever gotten past his differences with the writer. Anyhow, I'm totally digressing. The story is fine, very cheesy in ways, very sweet in ways; and completely Speilberg. It also, could've ended 45 minutes sooner and been just fine...

For a huge budget sci-fi adventure film this one lives admirably up to what you'd expect. The architecture, the vehicles, the costumes. All are very nicely futuristic looking, but grounded in the present day. The Production Design by Rick Carter should definately be commended. Of course the other major aspect in a film like this is the CG and special effects. Well, of course Speilberg has the power of ILM behind him on virtually all of his films, and it proves to good use here. The CG is nice on the whole. Some of it is still fairly obvious effects, but what are you really expecting? I mean, when you're talking about effects as far out as this it gets a bit dicey any which way you go. The one notable bad effect in the film was the design of the far future robots near the end. They just didn't work at all. And, to top it off, I kept thinking they were aliens... I guess that's a stroy issue but still, it's annoying. We have very defined preconcieved ideas of what a robot is supposed to look like, also what an alien is supposed to look like; and bending those conceptions is good. But to mix them up. gets way too confusing...Anyhow, a decent look overall. The cinematography and lighting were superb as usual for a Speilberg film. And for the most part I believed what I saw.

Haley Joel Osment plays the protagonist David. And as everyone who'se seen The Sixth Sense probably knows, this kid can really act. He does a very good job with a sometimes weak script. He's also belivable as a robot. Although you might think that wouldn't require too much effort, I tend to think it would. being not just a belivable outsider, but a fundamentally different creature than the rest of the cast would be very challenging; and I think he lived up to it well. The other notable performances came from Jude Law as Gigalo Joe. Not his finest work, but thouroughly entertaining none the less. And from the eminable William Hurt as Professor Hobby, David's creator. Hurt as usual, is fantastic, bring so much depth and emotion to the character I was really moved by his few scenes in the film.

What can you say about Steven Speilberg? He's great, he's terrible, he's infurriating??? All of those would be applicble to his career. His films range from sheer revolutionary genius, to blithering trite. And where does A.I. fit into all this? Well, somewhere in the middle would be the simple answer. Speilberg definately knows how to pull things together in a film the way he wants them. He gets great preformances from his actors and trusts his camera to tell the story for the most part instead of beating us over the head with plot like some directors. But there's just something about some of his work that doesn't sit right. It's really hard to put a finger on what that something is though. Maybe it's his choice of story... maybe it's his endings. That definately feels like the case here. But I don't know if I can really fault the guy for that. I suspect that this film came together pretty much exactly like he wanted it to. And that's really impressive. So while it wasn't really right for my taste, I think that maybe that just comes down to me. What do you think???

This is a good film for the most part. The ending is weak and kinda sappy, and on the whole it doesn't work for me. But give it a try; especially if you're interested in the subject matter.