Every time a film like this comes out, there's the fans that claim all who hate the film "just don't get it." Well, how hard is it to "get" a robot movie? From silent films like Metropolis, to The Matrix, robots in film have been done over and over. Personally, I prefer movies about robots who are happy simply to be robots, like Short Circuit. If you prefer the emotional-robot stories, the list is not pretty: the perverted robot in Demon Seed, the comical robot "couple" in Heartbeeps, and most recently, the sex-starved robot in Bicentennial Man. Sure, A. I.. has a far superior "epic" feel to it, that divides it from the above films. However, the "emotional robot" plot concept still has its flaws, and neither Kubrick nor Spielberg can correct them.
(Mild Spoilers follow, though all from the first third (or so) of the film, so it shouldn't be a worry...)
People have alluded to Pinocchio when discussing A. I..'s story. This is incorrect. Pinocchio was a puppet who became human when he sacrificed himself for the life of Gepetto. In this picture, there is no such epiphany in David; he merely wants to hear "I love you" from Mommy, because his programming lists it as a requirement. No biggie; "humans" in this story have reactions even more questionable. We see his human "brother" treat him badly, because allegedly a boy would not want a robot as a brother (since when? I mean, how cool would it be to have C3PO as a brother?). In a similar emotional contradiction, David's "mother" does not have the heart to see him destroyed, though sees no harm in leaving him deserted in the forest. HUH??? Sure, neither Spielberg nor Kubrick were ever mothers, and I wasn't, either, though even I know this is a cockeyed view of the human spirit, and maternal instincts in particular. With this in mind: WHY would David not be infuriated at her for deserting him in the woods? The answer to this question seems to allude to the truth; since his emotions after this desertion are not real, David himself is not real. So why should we even care?
Don't get me wrong. I think this film has some great production values, regardless of its negative attitude about humanity and human compassion. However, what dropped my rating of the film, all the way down from 9 out of 10, to ***5*** out of 10? Simple; the finale is horrid. I can forgive an unsatisfying ending; that is commonplace these days. What I *cannot* forgive is an ending so contrived, every single plot inconsistency seems dragged in, just for one more audience tear. I don't want to give anything away; suffice to say every minute of the third "act" of the film is pure cornball, and left me saying, "Why would this happen...? ...just to make the audience keep crying? Give me a break!" It just goes on, and on, and on. In truth, the only tear I felt was in realizing this laughable finale ruined a possible classic in sci-fi epic cinema. Instead, Mr. Spielberg, all your "artificial emotions" warrant slicing your film's rating in HALF. Boo hoo.
(Mild Spoilers follow, though all from the first third (or so) of the film, so it shouldn't be a worry...)
People have alluded to Pinocchio when discussing A. I..'s story. This is incorrect. Pinocchio was a puppet who became human when he sacrificed himself for the life of Gepetto. In this picture, there is no such epiphany in David; he merely wants to hear "I love you" from Mommy, because his programming lists it as a requirement. No biggie; "humans" in this story have reactions even more questionable. We see his human "brother" treat him badly, because allegedly a boy would not want a robot as a brother (since when? I mean, how cool would it be to have C3PO as a brother?). In a similar emotional contradiction, David's "mother" does not have the heart to see him destroyed, though sees no harm in leaving him deserted in the forest. HUH??? Sure, neither Spielberg nor Kubrick were ever mothers, and I wasn't, either, though even I know this is a cockeyed view of the human spirit, and maternal instincts in particular. With this in mind: WHY would David not be infuriated at her for deserting him in the woods? The answer to this question seems to allude to the truth; since his emotions after this desertion are not real, David himself is not real. So why should we even care?
Don't get me wrong. I think this film has some great production values, regardless of its negative attitude about humanity and human compassion. However, what dropped my rating of the film, all the way down from 9 out of 10, to ***5*** out of 10? Simple; the finale is horrid. I can forgive an unsatisfying ending; that is commonplace these days. What I *cannot* forgive is an ending so contrived, every single plot inconsistency seems dragged in, just for one more audience tear. I don't want to give anything away; suffice to say every minute of the third "act" of the film is pure cornball, and left me saying, "Why would this happen...? ...just to make the audience keep crying? Give me a break!" It just goes on, and on, and on. In truth, the only tear I felt was in realizing this laughable finale ruined a possible classic in sci-fi epic cinema. Instead, Mr. Spielberg, all your "artificial emotions" warrant slicing your film's rating in HALF. Boo hoo.