'A.I'
Mikometer Rating: 8 of 10

The critics trashed this film. Nobody understood it. Everybody seemed to see "more Spielberg, and less Kubrick". Some, if not all, lambasted the "sexual" element, and it was derided for using childhood as a theme, and composing scenes guaranteed to scare the child in all of us.
'A.I' while not the best movie ever made, is clearly a work of art, a revered adaptation of one respected director's ideas for a film by another. Spielberg has crafted an "intellectual" work that raises more questions than it answers, much like his serious work like Schindler's List, and less like E.T., which is what everybody assumed this would be.
'A.I.' is a very good film. It might not have attained "classical" status, but then few films do these days. The film's journey, which takes Haley Joel Osment as the robot David from one incredible situation to the next without blinking an eye, has honest twists, unlike, say, Unbreakable, and is thoroughly entertaining, even though it lasts almost two and a half hours.
At that length, I call most movies, "Asshurters" because I want so much to get out of my seat and rub my aching butt. I hardly noticed the length of 'A.I', my butt didn't hurt at all, and this is positive proof to me that I was truly entertained.
The genesis of this film is well known. Stanley Kubrick always wanted to make it, but was waiting for the technology to catch up with his vision. It would have been his stab at the genre of science fiction, and he "passed the reigns" to Spielberg soon before embarking on 'Eyes Wide Shut'.
There are Kubrickian touches in 'A.I', but the film is a Spielberg film. As Steven does with all material, like Disney, or Hitchcock did before him, he imprints his indelible stamp. 'Jurassic Park' is a Michael Crighton novel, and the movie follows the plot of the book, but the look and feel are all Spielberg. Same with 'A.I' It is his least "wondrous" or " awe inspiring" piece. I think he is rather restrained here, and that is probably due to his reverence for the original material, which he adapted as screenwriter.
William Hurt's Professor Hobby introduces his staff of robotics engineers, and to us the audience, to his dreams, which have recently become reality, of producing the first robot to be able to "love". Immediately, and I doubt the critics realize this when they criticize the introduction of Jude Law's "Gigolo Joe" in the second movement, a character notes to Hobby that the company has a very lucrative sex robot business selling "love robots".
That isn't the kind of love Hobby means, however, and his surrogate son robot, David, is capable, if programmed correctly, to actually give love to his "parents". A computer search reveals that employee Henry Swinton (Sam Robards) has had a family tragedy and is in danger of losing his son, so he is the recipient of Hobby's request for a test parent for his beta unit.
Frances O'Conner plays Swinton's wife, Monica, who is greiving for their son, seemingly lifeless, and in a coma. When she first hear's of her husband's intentions of giving her David, as he's luring David out of their elevator, she freaks. She doesn't believe she could ever love another, especially a robot.
I was reminded of the similar robot film: 'The Bicentennial Man' with Robin Williams. That movie didn't click with audiences either. I think it might be that the public doesn't want to think about the possibility of robots in the age of information. The robots of early science fiction were just that: fiction. Today, robotics is an industry, and the idea of "artificial humans" is "just on the horizon". The fable told in 'A.I.' is a good one, but people don't want to listen to it. I think that's why there was a critical backlash, and why the public didn't turn out for it like usual Spielberg fare.
I want to say that I haven't seen Frances O'Conner in a movie except for 'A.I.'but was impressed very much by her. She was in Bedazzled, playing Allison, and her photos look really good, but 'A.I.' is the first film I've actually seen with her in it, and I must say I rather liked this actress, even in what could be called a less than fulfilling role.
If you read my reviews at all, you know I don't like rehashing the plot. I assume that you have read all the reviews, and know the plot from the previews. They give most of it away anyway. But this movie has, as I have mentioned, many turns on it's road, and each turn is a surprise, or at least was to me. Frances is the lynchpin for one of these surprise twists, and I think it is to the benefit of the actress that she pulls off the scene. Even though I read that there are scenes dropped from the movie which point to a more certain reason for why she acts as she does, as played, I was not surprised so much as the critics seemed to be. The action is very surprising, but the film, as presented, seemed to me to tie up every plot hole, and presented the events with a seamlessness which adds to one's enjoyment of the piece.
There are "movements" in 'A.I.' Like the movements in Kubrick films, the switch from Private Pyle's murder suicide to wartime craziness in 'Full Metal Jacket', the different segments of '2001', the slow descent into madness Jack Torrance succumbs to in "The Shining", 'A.I's plot turns send it in another direction. A major thematic element in the film is the Collodi fairy tale: "Pinnochio". Like Pinnochio, David embarks on a trek, and ultimately, he wants, like the little puppet, to become a real boy.
Of course the movie duplicates this theme. The robot, programmed to love like a real boy, of course yearns to become one. This brings me to the critics again. They seemed to link Spielberg and Disney when discussing the subject of Pinnochio. I really don't think the Pinnochio elements of the script were meant to allude to Disney at all, but were probably in the original script. And I like the script. I read that there is more to this movie, and can't wait to see the deleted scenes on the DVD.
Spielberg shouldn't be concerned that this movie didn't rake in the numbers. Maybe the same common denominator audience which propels Adam Sandler films into the statosphere simply can't understand a film that makes them think.
Without trying to divulge much of the plot turns, the characters David encounters include the before mentioned Jude Law as Gigolo Joe, a "sex robot" on the run. He and David travel together, and have adventures. There is a philosophical ending which incorporates characters we've seen before in Speilberg films.
Nothing disappointed me at all with 'A.I.' It is masterful storytelling, and is original in intent and execution. Unlike some Spielberg movies populated with dinosaurs, 'A.I.' is not an embarrassment to it's audience. I rather think it is a shame that the film isn't making money, but perhaps this will give it more credibility in the future, when people revisit the film and ponder it's mysteries.
There are a lot of different opinions concerning 'A.I.' I think the fact that it generates controversy is good. It doesn't treat the audience like suckers, as some Spielberg movies have done in the past. It is thoughtful and riveting. The images are memorable, and the acting is seamless. Haley Joel Osment is the perfect wide eyed Spielberg kid, and as I mentioned, this is less a wide eyed Spielberg film than, say, E.T. or Jurassic Park. I believed David had just come into the world, and I believed his journey, and his reactions and dreams and destinations. I really liked this movie, and recommend it with an 8 of 10 on the Mikometer.

Haley wants to be a real boy.

Mikometer Rating: 8 of 10

'A.I. Artificial Intelligence'
Haley Joel Osment: David
Jude Law: Gigolo Joe
Frances O'Connor: Monica Swinton
Brendan Gleeson: Lord Johnson-Johnson
William Hurt: Professor Hobby
Sam Robards: Henry Swinton

Warner Bros. Pictures and DreamWorks Pictures present an Amblin/Stanley Kubrick production, released by Warner Bros. Director Steven Spielberg. Producers Kathleen Kennedy, Steven Spielberg, Bonnie Curtis. Executive producers Jan Harlan, Walter F. Parkes. Screenplay Steven Spielberg, based on a screen story by Ian Watson, based on the short story by Brian Aldiss. Cinematographer Janusz Kaminski. Editor Michael Kahn. Costumes Bob Ringwood. Music John Williams. Production design Rick Carter. Art directors Richard Johnson, Jim Teegarden, Thomas Valentine. Set decorator Nancy Haigh. Running time: 2 hours, 26 minutes.

Review written and copyrighted 2001 by Michael F. Nyiri