SPEILBERG’S A.I. IS INTRIGUING, WONDERFUL, & DISAPPOINTING
(reviewed at the mecca with annie on opening day; Friday, June 29th, 2001)
In 1969 Brian Aldiss wrote a short story titled “Super Toys Last All Summer Long.” Stanley Kubrick ran with Aldiss’ idea and created a magnificent fairy tale opus he titled A.I. No one really knows how long Kubrick tinkered with his movie idea, but I know that ever since I became a fan of cinema I have heard rumors and hushed whispers about this infamous and secretive project. A.I. was first thought to be a sequel of sorts to Kubrick’s most famous work, 2001: A Space Odyssey, or at least a companion piece. It wasn’t until he passed away that his true intentions were revealed to the public.
I first read about these ‘true intentions’ in an article in Entertainment Weekly shortly after his death. Apparently Kubrick not only had an 80 page treatment written, but he had collaborated with almost every special f/x wizard in the business, including having telephone conversations for years with Steven Spielberg, who he had at first wished to have him help produce (there is also a story going around now that has Kubrick asking Spielberg to direct because the material was closer to Steven’s heart). There were supposedly story boards drawn up, and I’m sure Kubrick had everything ready to go.
There was one problem besides his death: he wasn’t sure how to proceed. In the article in EW there was the idea brought forward that Kubrick wasn’t sure if the main character of A.I., a robot boy, should be played by a real actor or done via special f/x. No one really knows what Kubrick was waiting for. He had most of the work done but he decided to make Eyes Wide Shut instead, another film that he had been thinking of making for years.
I’m sure Kubrick had more project ideas under his belt, but A.I. (Artificial Intelligence) was by far his greatest. When he died every one of his fans realized that what could have been his greatest triumph would never see the light.
That is, until director Steven Spielberg took the reigns over.
And now A.I. is playing in well over three thousand screens across the country. Sadly, it’s playing to main stream audiences who loath it, who leave the theater wishing they had their eight bucks back. The critics have been even more generous, but I believe everyone agrees that A.I. is a disappointment. It may feature wonderful sights, awesome special f/x, a truly great fairy tale story, and some fine performances by the likes of Jude Law and Sixth Sense boy, but in the end, the film is rather disappointing.
Basically, A.I. is a future Pinnochio. Instead of the puppet yearning to be human, Haley Joel Osment is a robot yearning to be human. See, he is the first robot (known as a “mecha” in the film…for “mechanical”) who can actually love. But that is all that I am going to tell you. Why ruin anything? Why tell you about Joe or Teddy or the half-submerged New York City?
The other critics, including the ridiculous spoiler filled review by Peter Travers of Rolling Stone, have given away everything and more. What Spielberg and Dreamworks and Warner Brothers have done so far has been to promote the film as being ‘secretvie.’ Kubrick used to do it. He had closed sets and used to use the bare minimum of set people. There’s a funny story Paul Thomas Anderson (the writer/director of the awesomely epic Magnolia) had about visiting the set of Eyes Wide Shut. P.T. asked Kubrick why he didn’t have that many people working on the movie. Kubrick leered at him and asked, “Why? How many people does it take you?” An obvious jab about Kubrick getting it done more efficiently.
A.I. is a surprise. The previews have shown almost nothing about gigantic chunks of the film. The problem with this is that most casual moviegoers will enter the darkened theater expecting a Speilbergian fantasy. They will feel robbed, cheated, and raped. This is a dark film with even darker currents running through it. Kubrick would be proud of most of the film, especially it’s cruel and evil tone. This is a cold, barren world filled with robbers, cheaters, and thieves.
A.I. is, honestly, a mess of a film. The beginning is different than most films these days but too much of the beginning is boring. The middle section is exciting and riotous and awesome and insane and silly and comical and ridiculous and wonderful and intense. The last section of the film is boring and silly and laughably bad. There are some parts in this film that had me hooked. There are wondrous sights in this film, like Joe by the moon, or Teddy crawling up on the bed like a common pet.
There are a lot of good things about Speilberg’s A.I., the first film he wrote since Close Encounters of the Third Kind. The performances, special f/x, and story are the best things in the film. The bad parts include some slow parts in the beginning and the God-awful ending that works in script-form (or book form, this would have been a downright awesome novel). Why is the ending so bad here? You will be cringing in your seat because you will think that the movie is never going to end. After much thought, the special f/x are what ruined the ending. Still, the final scene is wonderfully serene, and I believe it is the same way Kubrick would have ended the picture.
Which leads to the great, never-ending debate. Would Stanely Kubrick’s A.I. have been better? Would it have been longer? More violent? More sadistic? More sexual? More dark? More boring? More insane?
Nobody knows. And sadly no one will truly ever know. But I was glad to see A.I. on the big screen, even though it was Steven’s, and not Stanley’s. In the end, while A.I. may have disappointed, it is a grand picture of epic scope worth seeing. It isn’t a great film, but it has excellent parts that you will ponder and reminisce about long after the sun sets. I would have rather seen Steven’s A.I. then no A.I. at all. I suppose that has to be saying something. **1/2 (out of ****)
