|
This is my second review in a row of a highly anticipated summer movie that fell short - way short. I had gone to see A.I. with very high expectations, hoping to be not only entertained, but also intellectually stimulated. Unfortunately, neither happened.
The movie started off with a very promising opening scene. The world set up in the movie is one where "mecha" - humanlike intelligent machines - are common, but often hated by humans. A team of scientists is interested in knowing whether a machine could be developed to love, like a real child, and whether people could love him back. Some of the initial issues brought up include what consists of humanity, whether machines can have feelings, whether they can love, and what responsibilities - if any - humans have towards machines. I was on the edge of my seat waiting to see how it would play out.
Instead of a philosophical movie, however, A.I. gradually evolved into a long, run-on fairy tale loosely based on Pinocchio. David, the robot-child created to love, wants nothing more than to become a "real boy" so as to win the affection of his "mother". He sets off on a typical fairy-tale quest, with the goal of finding the Blue Fairy who can grant his wish. Along the way he makes a couple of friends to serve as sidekicks, and encounters obstacles and dangers. This is an all-too-common plot that really did not need three hours to unfold.
One of the problems with this movie is that it unsuccessfully fused two divergent visions - one of the late Stanley Kubrick, whose brainchild the movie initially was - and the other of Steven Spielberg, who finished the project after Kubrick's death. The lavish, grandiose scenes are clearly Kubrick, with a bit of the Burton-esque dark side, thrown in for good measure (I could almost swear Tim Burton had a hand in this movie, if I didn't know better). Especially the scenes of the flesh fairs and the machines searching for old parts are plenty dark and twisted.
And then? Just as we expect the plot to heat up and eventually come to a climax - nothing. The break between Kubrick's and Spielberg's visions in this movie is clearly apparent. Spielberg attempts to turn this into another E.T. (what is it with those acronym titles, anyway?) but fails miserably. One scene leads into another, and another, and another. Each scene of the last hour or so of the movie could easily have been the last. It really should have ended long before it did. Because when it finally ended, the audience was left with . . . well, I'm not sure. There's no moral, no message, no underlying meaning, and seemingly no rhyme or reason for ending the movie the way it ended. The last hour just chugs along aimlessly until it breaks off awkwardly, without really saying anything.
Not that everything was bad. There was some very good acting in this movie, and a cute talking teddy bear. However, these small things fail to redeem this mess.
Again, it's another case of a real shame. Had A.I. dared to ask the big questions, it could have been one of the most intelligent and thought-provoking movies in a long time. But it didn't, so it wasn't. If you're looking for something interesting, pick up a copy of Ray Kurzweil's book "The Age of Spiritual Machines". A.I. doesn't even come close.
|
